The inspiration for this entry comes from a post at
Body and Soul. Jeanne d'Arc says:
The latter part of the show consisted of an interview with Tom Friedman, and the interesting thing there was not Oprah's fawning, but seeing what happens to Friedman's suggestion that war with Iraq will have to be followed by a twenty year occupation when it hits the real world. People who follow news religiously - and for the most part, that's not Oprah's audience - have heard the call to imperialism so many times we've become numb to the idea. But when the camera turned to the audience after Friedman's suggestion, you could see the shock on their faces. Mouths open. Shaking their heads. Friedman looked increasingly ridiculous saying that this twenty-year occupation is what Americans have to be prepared for, while (mostly) women looked at him as if he were out of his mind. One man in the audience, in fact, rose to tell him exactly that.
One of the main arguments I've been making against war on Iraq is that the cost to the Iraqi people will be devastating, both those killed directly by our bombs and those killed indirectly through our destruction of the infrastructure. If we just walked away at that point, it would be morally abhorrent. It's good in that sense that the Bush Administration does seem to be planning a long stay in Iraq.
But at the same time, there seems to be very little talk about what exactly this long stay would entail. How much money would it cost? Just how completely would the U.S. have to occupy Iraq to truly rebuild it? What will be necessary to bring Iraq's Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds together? How will we deal with Iraq's neighbors such as Iran and Syria? What about guerrilla and terrorist attacks on American forces? Are we prepared to bear that cost?
This isn't a brief in-and-out adventure we're talking about. The war itself, maybe, but not rebuilding Iraq afterwards. To truly bring peace and democracy to Iraq, I think we would almost have to treat it as a fifty-first state. Build democratic institutions and traditions from the local level and the grass-roots up. Spend billions, perhaps even trillions eventually, in aid, reconstructing the country's infrastructure, restoring refugees to homes, and developing the economy. Anything less would leave Iraq a broken, de-stabilized country ripe for a radical or authoritarian regime and filled with hatred at the people who did so much damage to them: us.
Are we truly prepared for the burden that we would have to bear? And if not, under what morality could we possibly justify devastating another country and then walking away? And, as I said, if we did that we've probably guaranteed a wave of anti-American hatred so great that we may look back at 9/11 and think it was nothing.
I hope that those who support war will step up and provide their answers to these questions.
For further reading, start with
The Fifty-First State, a lenghtly essay from Atlantic Monthly. Next, check out
The Iraq Bush Will Build to see what plans are currently in place and their cost and to think about whether that will be enough. Two opinion columns written with the aftermath in mind are
The Road Better Not Taken and
Iraq After Saddam: The Next Yugoslavia?. Finally, a few blogs looking at this issue are
Matthew Yglesias,
Path of the Paddle, and
Kieran Healy.
veiled4allah: what comes after?
War is very very very bad and should be avoided if possible but while the pro-defense side is being asked to face up to the costs of going to war, the other side should also face up to the costs of not going to war.
(If it is impossible, one of the supporting pillars of the pro-war argument is gone. Remember that war is not being fought to make Iraq a little better than it is under Saddam. It's supposed to be transformative, and bring democracy and freedom. Whther GWB has fulfilled his promises ought to be measured by that test.)
As I tried to make clear in my post, the consequences to Iraq will be much worse if we go to war and then leave, than if we do nothing. Saddam Hussein is not wreaking anywhere near the kind of mass destruction we are going to. Antiwar people don't count the cost of inaction because they've already calculated that the costs of war are far worse. That's kind of obvious, you know. War is never constructive, it is only destructive.
The only way in which the costs to Iraq would be less than letting Saddam Hussein stay in is if we engage in the "fifty-first state" type of rebuilding or twenty-year occupation that I am talking about in my post.
But there is also the question of the cost to America. Do we have the money, the time, and the will to carry out this massive transformative project? Is the project even feasible in the real world? Will it work out like we hope or end in disaster?
A lot of times we want to help somebody but we don't have the resources to do so. That may well be the case here.
And one other thing seems clear to me. We have not thought through what we are going to be doing. That is an almost certain recipe for failure.
Are you ready to bear the consequences of failure, Lynn? They may be very high indeed, as I outlined in my post.
Jazakallah khairain for ur good work sis.keep it up.
Eid Mubaraka . have a wonderful Eid . May Allah bring peace and happiness to this Ummah.
Th d tht wr "nvr slvs nythng" s th tn f th gnrnt. Wr ds slv thngs, prmnntly! Nt lwys, bt whn t rlly cnts.
Rvltnry Wr, Cvl Wr, WW rslvd sgnfcnt sss. Th wr n fgnstn, whl nt vr, s sgnfcnt stp twrd mvng tht cntry t f th drk gs. Th wr gnst trrrsm wll b wn f th nlghtnd wrld wks p nd dcds tht "w r nt gng t tk t ny mr!"
Th cst f th wr n rq, f "dn nd wn" NW s vry smll frctn f th cst f wtng 2, 3, 5 yrs ntl Hssn r hs sn ctlly dvlp nclr wpn(s) nd mk thm vlbl t thr trrrsts. f h wr bl t dply nclr wpn, th dvsttn tht wld rn dwn n rq s trly nmgnbl bt f h s rplcd nw, rq wll hv n pprtnty t rjn th mdrn wrld, nd prhps, bcm ldng cntry n th mddl st. Wld y rthr s 5,000 dths nw r Bgdd trnd t glss n 5 yrs?
rq, ntrstngly ngh, s n f th fw cntrs whr th cst f rbldng wll b nglgbl whn y fctr n th fnncl cpblty f th cntry tslf. Hssn cn spnd $5 blln yr n wpns nd ryl plcs wth th rstrctd rvn h s crrntly rcvng. Whn rq's rvn s dbld, nd th fnds r spnt n hmntrn prjcts, th cntry wll b fr bttr ff thn t s nw wthn 12 mnth f th strt f th wr.
s sttd n nthr pst, Sddmt (th nm s ccrt, s fr s knw, h s th nly ntnl ldr wth rpst ffclly n th gvrnmnt pyrll... m crtn thrs hv thm bt r lttl mr dscrt) hs bn rpnsbl fr vr 1.2 mlln dths drng hs tm n pwr, snc mst f thm wr Mslm, m srprsd tht th Mslm cmmnty s s pst bt th prspct f lss thn 5% f tht fgr dyng drng hs vrthrw! Th nly rsn cn cm p wth s tht pprntly Mslms fl tht bng klld by nthr Mslm s K bt bng klld by nn Mslm s nt!
Kn
Oh, and one more question. Since you're so eager for war, are you signing up so that you can be there, or will you stay at home while others take the fighting and the dying for you?
dn't rcll mkng ny sttmnt tht "wr wll nt cs mch dmg n rq". Y hv nt vry nq blty t s wht y wnt t s bcs t hlps y vd dlng wth rlty.
f crs thr wll b dmg n rq nd f crs thr wll b nncnt ppl hrt nd klld nd n t s nt nc!
Bt wll rq (nd fgnstn, nd pst WW Grmny nd Jpn, nd Bsn tc.) b bttr ff 1, 2, 5, 10 yrs ftr thr gvrnmnts wr dftd nd rplcd thn thy r nw?
nncnt ppl r dyng n rq vry dy. f Hssn fnd flt wth wmn hr svrd hd wll hng n th drwy f hr hm fr wk r tw...d y thnk tht wll cntn ftr h s rmvd?
s sttd prvsly, th dmg t rq nd ts ctzns frm wr tdy wll b tny frctn f th dvsttn tht wld ccr f Hssn s td n ny wy t th s f chmcl, blgcl r nclr wpns by hmslf r ny grp t whch h mght pss thm.
Th S hs svd mr lvs thrgh ts ntrvntn n crmnl stts thn ny thr cntyr n hstry.
Hv w md mstks? bsltly. Wll w mk mr mstks? bsltly. Wll w kp tryng ntl w gt t rght? crtnly hp s.
Thr s nthng, rpt, nthng, wrs thn sttng bck nd lttng vnts cntrl y rthr thn th rvrs. spclly whn dlng wth hmcdl psychpths sch s Hssn, bn Ldn nd thr sscts nd fllwrs.
D lk wr? N dn't. Nthr d njy srgry t ttch svrd lmb bt ndr th rght crcmstncs bth r bttr prfrmd thn gnrd.
hv bn t wr nd wld rtrn t ths n n scnd. wld rthr g t wr 10 tms s tht my chldrn d nt hv t g sngl tm.
Th ld syng " sttch n tm svs nn" s mst fttngly ppld hr.
ppsmnt s ntrprtd s wknss nd nly lds t mr dth nd dstrctn.
Kn
Would you just do me a favor and read the articles that I linked in my blog post? Let's at least work from the same page.
Oh, and please refresh your memory on this when we talk about the costs of war.
Th N!
Pls!
Ys, pls rvw th hstry f th N. Thy cn't rprt ctl vnts crrctly (rmmbr 50,000 dd nd wndd n Jnn? tht bcm 52 dd..mstly cmbtnts).
Fnd n nstnc whr th N hs tkn th mrl hgh grnd whn th S dd nt frc t t d s? Thn fnd n N prtn tht ws sccss? Thy dd Hll f jb prtctng th Mslms n Bsn...th crgs Blgn trps std by whl wht, 5000 wmn nd chldrn wr msscrd?
Chck th rprts f th N bg-wg slrs nd th rprts f th N wrkrs rpng chldrn, rqrng sx t gv th mpvrshd FR fd frm th N.
Lk t wht cntry hds th N cvl rghts cmmssn...Lby nd s bt t hd th dsrmmnt cmmssn..rq.
Thy hv ll th crdblty fx n th hn hs, xcpt th fx hs mrls.
Thy md th sm prdctns bt fgnstn, th sm strvng ppltn, th sm mssv dths. Ths dts r t stpd t vn lrn frm thr wn mstks.
Pnt m t sm FCTS nd wll b hppy t rvw thm!
Kn
I really don't know what to say to you, Ken. You won't accept anything from the U.N., you won't accept anything from human rights organizations (you said this in an earlier thread). Could you explain who you would accept information from? Anybody?
Until we can find some kind of common ground, there is no point in having a discussion. I'm not giving you fringe groups or conspiracy theories here. I'm giving you reports from mainstream news agencies and respected non-governmental organizations. If your paranoia is so great that you can't accept that as a basis for discussion, I don't see how we can talk at all.
nd y blv th N?
Rd rprts bt thr ctvts tht wr wrttn by ppl nt ssctd wth th N.
Lk t th dcttrshps tht thy gnr, rn, Syr, Zmbwb(sp) nd Rbrt Mgb wh s rlly strvng 5,000,000 f hs wn ppl. Lk t th cndmntn f th S ffrt n fgnstn, gn prgnstctng bt th mpndng dmg f S ttck whl gnrng th dvsttn csd by th Tlbn. sk th ppl n Bsn (xcpt th mrdrng Srbs, f crs) hw mch hlp th N prvdd.
Fnd n mprsnd, mpvrshd ppl tht th N ctlly hlpd (whn t ws nt frcd t by th S).
Th N nd cntrs lk Frnc nd Grmny r mstrs f dng NTHNG n th fc f crss. Thy r hppy t tlk (syng bsltly nthng f cnsqnc) bt th thght f ny ctn lvs thm prlyzd.
hv rd mltpl prspctvs n th N, th S, th Mddl st. hv rd frst hnd ccnts frm vrs vwpnts nd thn hv wtd ntl th ctl fcts hv cm t t s wh prsntd th mst ccrt ntl rprtng.
hv rd 10 dffrnt hstrs f th Mddl st nd hv rd ngh bt th N t mk m wnt t vmt.
Th bttm ln s ll th rdng hs nt hd 10% f th mpct n frmng my pnns tht th ctns (r nctns) f ths vrs grps hs hd. dn't nd smn t dntfy mrdrs thg fr m. hv th blty t d tht n my wn. nd m nt frd f bng lblld "pltclly ncrrct" n my bsrvtns.
Y hv yt t nswr sngl qstn hv psd, thr thn t snd m t th thghts nd rprsnttns f dscrdtd rgnztns nd fld phlsphs.
m cnfsd s t whthr y hv yr wn pnns r rly ntrly n ths y rfrnc.
Kn
I am still waiting to hear the basis for your opinions and what sources you cite for them. You have spent a lot of time attacking the U.N. without telling me what you'll accept instead. Until we can find a common basis of facts that we can work from, we are just yelling at each other and not accomplishing anything.
Finally, I remind you that it is purely your own choice to come here and read my blog. If you don't like it, you can go somewhere that you like more. Why frustrate yourself? Why not give up on me and what you perceive as my stupidity? I'm just an ordinary person, not in any position to affect public opinion or government policy. Who really cares what I think or if I'm stupid and blind?
Added: You can also amuse yourself fisking this
Give Ken (and me!) a rebuttal that doesn't end with a link to another source. You say that the costs of war are high. Fine. What are the costs of inaction? In dollars, it's hard to say - containment isn't free in dollar terms, and we all know that it costs Iraqi lives. I'd just love for the anti-war side to acknowledge that inaction isn't free, either economically or morally. You can still conclude that inaction is the best course of action, but I just hate to see the dichotomy presented as: 1: costly and 2: free - it's not that simple.
And please, please: while there's a temptation to tell all those who disagree with your position on Iraq to bugger off to more hawkish pastures, don't. I don't always (often?) agree with Ikram, but his blog is awesome. Ikram is a rock star.
As to the "cost of inaction" argument, Lynn S posted that in her first comment, and Ikram and I responded to it. Would either you or Ken care to address those responses?
Perhaps my last post was harsh. I admit to being baffled by the passion Ken has against the U.N. and its agencies. I could understand it if I had been quoting from fringe groups, but to be attacked like this for quoting the U.N.? Am I the only one who finds that a bit odd? Maybe I am, and I'm totally out of touch with reality. God knows best.
The only thing they have proven capable of to date is providing continued employment for a large group of ignorant bureaucrats who have ignored tyrants, dictators and murders.
As I said, and you ignored, how can you have respect for an organization that has "elected" Libya as the head of the Human Rights Commission? How about Iraq heading the Disarmament Commission?
How many documented cases of genocide has the UN watched (and continues to watch) while doing NOTHING!!!! Not even condemning the perpetrators!
They have spent 50 years pandering to the Palestinians in their "refugee" camps. They have effectively made the Palestinians "wards" of the UN (although in this case there is some complicity on the part of their victims). The UN has done nothing to resolve the middle east problems, only exacerbate them.
What was that question again? Oh, yes, Why don't I believe the UN?
Ken
The U.N. also runs a series of agencies, which have no power to take action on their own, only to report on the way things are. I do not blame these agencies for the failure of the U.N. as a whole to act on their reports, I blame the member nations (including the U.S., you know) for the failure to act.
In any case, we haven't yet moved beyond bashing the U.N. to finding out what alternate sources we should use in its place. Still waiting...
Finally, I linked some other resources in the original blog entry including an article from the Atlantic Monthly, and some British newspapers. Any thoughts on those?
But, I also know that the cost of inaction is going to be high as well. If we don't go to war to put a stop to Saddam Hussein, we are going to have to spend time, energy, effort and money trying to keep him in check for an indefinite amount of time. (Til he dies?)
If you think about it, chances are that no one really wants to go to war, even the "war-mongers" probably have other things they'd rather be spending their time doing. War is harmful to all sides.
But, we're not going to change one another's minds. While I personally feel that arguing about going to war is a moot point, because I wholeheartedly feel that it is going to happen, no 'mights' or 'maybes,' I will say this: Neither side is very good at recognizing the (often times very) vallid points of the other side.
Yes, it is true that if we go to war, it is going to cost an exhorbitant amount of money, time, and energy. But, it's also true that if we don't go to war, we are still going to be spending an exhorbitant amount of money, time and energy trying to keep Saddam Hussein in line.
Both the pro-war and the anti-war arguments have valid points, but they also have their down sides, too. The question that remains is which is the lesser of two evils.
For me, to stand around and do nothing, while horrible things are happening somewhere else is wrong. Just as I wouldn't stand idly by as someone murdered or raped my neighbor, I can not stand idly by while my global "neighbors" are in jeopardy.
And, no one can convince me that Saddam Hussein as a leader of a nation doesn't put others in jeopardy. It seems that one of the biggest arguments of the anti-war side is all the death and destruction isn't worth it. But, isn't the death and destruction already happening? Perhaps it doesn't happen on as grand a scale as it would if we go to war, but it's still happening.
I think you raise some interesting questions. What I wonder is if the difference in the KIND of hardships that the Iraq people will have to deal with make it worth while even if there is more overall hardship in total? I think that having a small number of people tortured, murdered, etc. under a tyrant is worse than having a large number of people suffering hardships under some initial attempt at a democracy. What do you think?
thanks,
Richard
First, I think that the question you raised is one that can only be answered by the Iraqi people themselves. We have no right to decide for them what they should and shouldn't have to suffer or to tell them what kind of suffering is better or worse for them.
Second, while you may be right, I have many additional concerns about the aftermath. I pray all the time that I am wrong and that my fears are unfounded.
I am afraid to say that I do not share your religious beliefs. I used to be an atheist, but these days I tend to just accept the fact that I don't know. My guess is that world peace is impossible and the human cycle of war and inhumane treatment to each other is going to continue forever.
What I am saying is the argument put forth by the UN is a "worse case" scenario, and it seems that the study was made to back the point of not going to war. All studies have biases, depending on who is funding it. It also is not forward thinking ( it did not even seem to consider the unusual military strategy used so far to avoid casualties ie. who would have thought the defense ministry would still be standing = to try and sway the republican guard leadership to turn). The war in Afghanistan is different because the administration did not have to be as "sensistive" to political concerns . The administration is under unprecedented pressure in the US and abroad to keep casualties to a minimuim and to keep the conflict short while attaining its goals (disarmament and regim change). The study appears faulted because it makes assumptions based on previous conflicts, and so far those assumptions not materialized.
I realize some may see this as inflamatory sarcasm . . . I see as divine comedy that reflects the tragedy of a sufferring earth and its people , at the hands of an arrogant , self-righteous , corporate bully . . .
Comments ? Questions ? . . .
Blech! I'm really glad that you pro-war folks at least care about current events, but your presumptions and circular reasoning do not impress me!
Originally posted by marc webster -
This is getting nowhere. You may disagree with Ken and what sources he considers valid, but everyone does the same thing. You consider certain cost estimates, in dollar terms as well as civilian casualties, realistic and sound and discount the (admittedly) optimistic estimates of the 'hawks.' Ken does the opposite. We all judge info by different standards of proof - one for if the info confirms our beliefs and another for discordant or challenging info. That's why it's no good to point to your links (to the Guardian!) as proof of your even-handedness. I'm sure Ken's read it and rejected it.
Give Ken (and me!) a rebuttal that doesn't end with a link to another source. You say that the costs of war are high. Fine. What are the costs of inaction? In dollars, it's hard to say - containment isn't free in dollar terms, and we all know that it costs Iraqi lives. I'd just love for the anti-war side to acknowledge that inaction isn't free, either economically or morally. You can still conclude that inaction is the best course of action, but I just hate to see the dichotomy presented as: 1: costly and 2: free - it's not that simple.
And please, please: while there's a temptation to tell all those who disagree with your position on Iraq to bugger off to more hawkish pastures, don't. I don't always (often?) agree with Ikram, but his blog is awesome. Ikram is a rock star.
I support GWB, the United States, and the coalition troops who are fighting for us in Iraq. I was listening to the news today, and heard about Bush's proposed "supplemental" to the budget for 74.7 Billion, a good part of which will be used to help Iraq in reconstructing. In my humble opinion, I believe the US will stick around and help Iraq rise from this war as a FREE country. I have faith in my President, and in my country that we are doing the correct thing in Iraq. I do agree that War is never good and always a last resort, but I believe that after 12 years of lies, delaying tactics, and villanous acts by Saddam Hussein and his "government" is more than enough. I believe the US has been more than patient with Saddam and his regime. I will try to illustrate my point with a small example: Say that in your History class you have a fellow student that you have always regarded as strange. One day he comes into the class, pulls out a gun, and holds the class along with the teacher hostage. The police is notified and dispatched to the school, when they arrive they surround the building and try to negotiate with the student. He does not want to negotiate, decides instead to shoot a few students in the head and leave them for dead. After the gunshots the police officers have little choice but to use force to enter the classroom and disarm the student, unfortunately several officers are wounded and one eventually dies. The student is then brought forth before a judge and a jury of his peers where he is convicted of murder and sentenced to serve a jail term. Once the jail term has passed, the ex-student is released back into civilization with the conditions that he report to a parole officer every week, does not purchase any fire arms, and that he stay away from any schools, colleges, or universites. During his parole period the ex-student begins to lie to his parole officer, and there are credible reports that he has purchased a gun illegaly and has been seen "scouting" several local college campuses. The parole officer learns of these developments and reports the parole infractions to the appropriate authorities. Due to his violent past a SWAT team is dispatched to his residence to bring the ex-student back into custody for his parole violations, upon arrival they find that this ex-student has a group of "hostages" in his apartement. After hours of negotiations, it becomes apparent that the ex-student will not surrender peacefully and vows to kill all the hostages if his demands are not kept. Now in this ficitious story what whould you have the PD do, continue to negotiate with the ex-student regardless of his past history, or do you force your way into his apartement and try to rescue the hostages before the ex-student re-enacts his past? I believe that in this case as well as in Saddam's case, nothing else can be done but to use force and pray that the casualties are low. Sorry for the length of my comment, but I wanted to communicate my opinion in a clear and thorough fashion. GOD BLESS AMERICA. -k
Subject: Response to hypothetical situation
Say that in your History class you have a fellow student that you have always regarded as strange. One day he comes into the class, pulls out a gun, and holds the class along with the teacher hostage. The police is notified and dispatched to the school, when they arrive they surround the building and try to negotiate with the student. He does not want to negotiate, decides instead to shoot a few students in the head and leave them for dead. After the gunshots the police officers have little choice but to use force to enter the classroom and disarm the student, unfortunately several officers are wounded and one eventually dies. The student is then brought forth before a judge and a jury of his peers where he is convicted of murder and sentenced to serve a jail term. Once the jail term has passed, the ex-student is released back into civilization with the conditions that he report to a parole officer every week, does not purchase any fire arms, and that he stay away from any schools, colleges, or universites. During his parole period the ex-student begins to lie to his parole officer, and there are credible reports that he has purchased a gun illegaly and has been seen "scouting" several local college campuses. The parole officer learns of these developments and reports the parole infractions to the appropriate authorities. Due to his violent past a SWAT team is dispatched to his residence to bring the ex-student back into custody for his parole violations, upon arrival they find that this ex-student has a group of "hostages" in his apartement. After hours of negotiations, it becomes apparent that the ex-student will not surrender peacefully and vows to kill all the hostages if his demands are not kept. Now in this ficitious story what whould you have the PD do, continue to negotiate with the ex-student regardless of his past history, or do you force your way into his apartement and try to rescue the hostages before the ex-student re-enacts his past? I believe that in this case as well as in Saddam's case, nothing else can be done but to use force and pray that the casualties are low. Sorry for the length of my comment, but I wanted to communicate my opinion in a clear and thorough fashionThe official policy of "hostage negotiators" is to keep talking . Like the UN was trying to do.
God bless and help us all.
Politcally, the U.N. is nothing more than the consensus of the nations that are its members. As such, it often reflects the worst consensus instead of the best. I don't have much respect for that part of it either.
Hope you don't mind me jumping in to this conversation, but you seem like a reasonable person.I'm glad to hear you say that, especially now that we know that the French sold weapons to the Iraqis in violation of the UN Resolutions which they signed, as did the Chinese and the Russians. (If you need links, I can provide them, but a simple Google search will provide the evidence.)
How can we put our faith in a world "peace" organization that has member countries who lie and deceive? That vote against a war with Iraq while they are selling weapons to Iraq? That claim they want peace when they are facilitating war?
The U.N. also runs a series of agencies, which have no power to take action on their own, only to report on the way things are. I do not blame these agencies for the failure of the U.N. as a whole to act on their reports, I blame the member nations (including the U.S., you know) for the failure to act.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Is the US supposed to act *without* UN support as they are doing now? Or are they supposed to wait for the UN to "approve" their actions? You can't blame the US for not intervening and then turn around and criticize them for intervening.In any case, we haven't yet moved beyond bashing the U.N. to finding out what alternate sources we should use in its place. Still waiting...
I think the solution is precisely what the US is doing. Put together a coalition of countries that are tired of the bs and political games and want to take action.Does anyone even realize that millions of people have died in Africa and the UN has done nothing? If the Arab world thinks they have suffered (and they surely have) they need only look to Africa to be "thankful" for their suffering. The UN is a joke and a travesty.
What we need is nations that are willing to stand up and be counted, put their money where their mouth is and provide aid to the needy. And forget the UN. We don't need endless months of negotiations while people are dying. We need action.
If that action means troops, then the battle plan must be decisive and must avoid civilian casualties at all costs. And the criminals that run the regimes should be brought before the international courts, tried and, if convicted, sentenced appropriately.
Finally, I linked some other resources in the original blog entry including an article from the Atlantic Monthly, and some British newspapers. Any thoughts on those?
Those I will have to read later, but if they're like most of the anti-war tripe, they aren't worth wasting my time.So far, all I've seen from the anti-war side is "No War" and no solutions. The world has appeased dictators for too long. It's time for the civilized nations of the world to call the dictators' bluffs. Stop doing business with them, and stop doing business with the duplicitous nations like France that talk of peace while selling arms.
So long as "civilized" nations are willing to sit around and do nothing while innocent people die, we will never solve these problems. So long as they are willing to do business with evil dictators who oppress their people and kill them by the thousands, they have no moral leg to stand on.
Europe and the US should be ashamed of themselves for what they have allowed to occur in Africa and Bosnia and Iraq and many other places where brutal dictators treat human beings like animals to be slaughtered.
But another UN resolution? Don't make me laugh. The UN is a joke. A complete farce. If a person can't see that now, they are deliberately ignoring the truth.
The only way in which the costs to Iraq would be less than letting Saddam Hussein stay in is if we engage in the "fifty-first state" type of rebuilding or twenty-year occupation that I am talking about in my post.
I agree with that sentiment, however one of my biggest concerns and objections to the war is that that type of rebuilding is going to confirm the cries of neo-imperialism and Western interference in Arabic culture. Any government that comes up will be seen as a puppet government of the US and consequently have little or no credibility among the Arabic community or, quite possibly, among the Iraqi people as well. We are claiming to support democracy in Iraq. How long after Saddam is out of office will it be before the Iraqi people are allowed to pick their own leaders ? Would conservative Muslim or radical parties be allowed to exercise US style freedom of speech and fundraising ? What if they have elections while being reconstructed and they democratically choose a leader who, while commited to civil rights,wants to stop the reconstruction and order all US personnel out of the country. How would that be dealt with ?The Post WWII attempts at nation building through military means have practically all been dismal failures. Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Bosnia. There's no evidence that a reconstruction would succeed this time around.
Any justification for WAR is unacceptable.The utter disregard for world opinion and the UN by USA is another example of America's disregard for rights of other countries.The excuse that "INVASION" of Iraq for liberating its people from Saddam's rule is absurd.America's real interest is in the natural resources of Iraq.If we look at this will a long term perspective in mind, we can clearly see that USA wants to consolidate its position in West Asia.Though USA won't allow for exploration of natural resources in Alaska it is willing to do so in Iraq.I am no sympathiser of Saddam but I also don't endorse USA's selfish ways.USA is trying to change world order by completely sidelining UN.We should remember that the League of Nations failed and World War folllowed.If USA is genuinely interested in welfare of Iraq the UN is the right body whom it should help.But from past experiences we can see that USA can tolerate Israeli occupation of Palestine and the Pakistani dictator Pervez Mushharraf , but it is 'dying' to free people of Iraq.I think that better sense should prevail in the minds of Americans and they should force their Govt. to retreat.And lastly, America should realise that it's action appear to be not against Saddam but against Islam as whole.You cannot afford to Alienate more than 40% of the world,USA should remember this.
Utter disregard of world opinion? Last I checked the US had the backing of over 40 countries... but I guess that's not enough? If you think that all the US wants is Iraq's natural resources, then why did the US not take the opportunity in '91 to take them... they certainly had the opportunity? As far as Israel in Palestine, and Pervez Mushharraf go, neither pose(d) a direct threat to US interest, nor were they required by the UN to comply by disarming and discontinue the use and creation of WOMD. How exactly are the United States actions "appear" to be against Islam? Why is it that many Muslims in the US support what the US is doing in Iraq?The official policy of "hostage negotiators" is to keep talking . Like the UN was trying to do.
In reality if hostage negotiations have failed in the past, the probability that they will suceed are almost non existent. In this scenario a hostage negotiator is basically useless, the longer you delay action, the more likely that a hostage or other innocent civilians will be harmed. Look to WW2, due to inaction and "negotiations" the same French who currently oppose the US became another German casualty. No one should have to sit idly by and wait for another 9/11, or a Pearl Harbor.God bless and help us all.
By limiting Iraq's ability to arm itself, the U.S. and coalition partners would not have to maintain as high a degree of involvement in order to ensure this.
As for the infrastructure, I believe the plan is to have Iraq pay for the rebuilding of the country with oil profits, which would now be used for improvements to the country rather than Saddam's military and palace expenses.
-Tom Steele
Any justification for WAR is unacceptable.The utter disregard for world opinion and the UN by USA is another example of America's disregard for rights of other countries.The excuse that "INVASION" of Iraq for liberating its people from Saddam's rule is absurd.America's real interest is in the natural resources of Iraq.If we look at this will a long term perspective in mind, we can clearly see that USA wants to consolidate its position in West Asia.Though USA won't allow for exploration of natural resources in Alaska it is willing to do so in Iraq.I am no sympathiser of Saddam but I also don't endorse USA's selfish ways.USA is trying to change world order by completely sidelining UN.We should remember that the League of Nations failed and World War folllowed.If USA is genuinely interested in welfare of Iraq the UN is the right body whom it should help.But from past experiences we can see that USA can tolerate Israeli occupation of Palestine and the Pakistani dictator Pervez Mushharraf , but it is 'dying' to free people of Iraq.I think that better sense should prevail in the minds of Americans and they should force their Govt. to retreat.And lastly, America should realise that it's action appear to be not against Saddam but against Islam as whole.You cannot afford to Alienate more than 40% of the world,USA should remember this.
Are we to assume from your statement that you're perfectly happy with the UN?How do you feel about the UN's position toward Africa? Are you happy with that? They have bessentially ignored the suffering and deaths of millions of people in Africa. Is that the sort of organization that you think the world needs in order to bring peace to the world?
Or is it acceptable to you to have an organization that claims to want world peace but ignores areas of the world that apparently don't matter to it?
These are not rhetorical questions. I'm very curious to hear your thoughts.
BTW, the US gets less than 2% of its oil from Iraq and could care less about taking over the Iraqi oil fields. And many of us would love to throw the politicians who won't allow us to drill in Alaska out of office for good. We need to be less dependent on foreign sources of oil for our own security.
"Not war" is only the lesser of the two evils if you believe that reconstruction will prove to be an utter mess. Clearly, leaving Saddam in power for years to come, sanctions in place no doubt, starving his own people to build palaces and weapons, is not good for the Iraqi people or Iraq. How many of his own has Saddam killed? Tens of thousands at least; I don't have the numbers in front of me. How many civilians will die in this war? I don't know... less than that no doubt. Of course, any human death is horrible and to be avoided, but if one is to use this simple moral calculus, then clearly a relatively short war (weeks or months) is preferable to a protracted "siege" of Iraq under Saddam. The critical issue is, what happens after the war? You are pessimistic, while I am cautiously optimistic, and that's what tips the balance.
I agree that if we flub reconstruction, Iraq could easily fall into anarchy or be ruled by someone (somehow) worse than Saddam. It's really impossible to look that far into the future, of course - anything is possible. And that's exactly the problem.
Like you have said, Bush has stated that we are willing and able to do our utmost to ensure that Iraq becomes a stable, prosperous democracy. I believe that this is actually the primary reason why we are invading - to change Iraq in ways that are beneficial to both Iraq, and the United States, with the hope that such changes will be seen by nearby nations, and the prosperity and freedom desired so much that it is emulated. The domino theory rewritten. Several pundits have written on this, with fiery rhetoric on both sides, but in the end we simply don't know if it will work. Bush thinks it will, or at least that the possibility of it working is worth the risk of war.
We can't know how this will all turn out, but I, for one, as an American, am willing to sacrifice and funnel as much money and effort into Iraq as it takes. I believe that Iraqi prosperity and democracy is absolutely essential to the safety of the U.S., especially since after the war is over, we will be judged based on our success in doing exactly that. It won't be easy. It will probably be extremely difficult. It will cost American lives and money. Money is one thing; lives are another. I'm not in the military myself, but several members of my immediate family are. They are willing to risk their lives, however, because they believe, like me, that the goal of Iraqi freedom and democracy is worth the enormous risk that we are taking.
If Bush is right, it's a win-win situation, and it's worth every penny and every bit of risk we take. It'll hopefully ensure a long lasting future peace between Iraq and the U.S., and hopefully the entire region. If Bush is wrong...
At this point, I don't think there's much we can do but sit back and watch events unfold and hope for the best. I hope Bush and the neoconservative types whose ideas he has adopted are right =)
btw - as a political science major in college currently, I can tell you also that there are opposing schools of thought regarding the viability of democracy building, with each having some very strong points. There is a huge pile of literature and advice out there to guide our efforts, however, and for every problem listed in the articles you link, there are several solutions in academia with all sorts of fun statistical calculations and case studies to back them up. I honestly don't think that anyone can make predictions as to what will happen... we're going to just have to wait and see. If it were a sure thing, there wouldn't be any risk... but I'm cautiously confident that we'll figure something out. That's just me though, I guess, and it partly stems from my preconceptions and ideological slant.
As I tried to make clear in my post, the consequences to Iraq will be much worse if we go to war and then leave, than if we do nothing. Saddam Hussein is not wreaking anywhere near the kind of mass destruction we are going to. Antiwar people don't count the cost of inaction because they've already calculated that the costs of war are far worse. That's kind of obvious, you know. War is never constructive, it is only destructive.
Would you say the world would be better off if we hadn't fought Hitler? I doubt that you would. So obviously there are circumstances where war is the best alternative available. The destruction of war is awful, but out of the ashes can come a better life for people.But there is also the question of the cost to America. Do we have the money, the time, and the will to carry out this massive transformative project? Is the project even feasible in the real world? Will it work out like we hope or end in disaster?
First, I'd like to thank you for the links you provided. The articles are thought provoking and I think the concern for the future is real.Although I find that all the scenarios protrayed in the various articles are *possible*, I'd like to think that the end result will not be the worst case scenario.
We know some things now that we did not know when those articles were written, so we have the benefit of knowledge that they did not have. We know that the coaltion forces are intent on providing humanitarian aid as soon as possible. This is already happening in the south, in Umm Qasar and other towns. We know that the infrastructure of Iraq is being spared from the devastating damage of war as much as is practicable. These things will help reduce the long term cost of restoring Iraq.
We also know that the Iraqi "loyalists" will kill their own people without batting an eye, that if they didn't exert their control over the populace as well as the military that many would have already surrendered and accepted aid, that they will hide in hospitals, use Iraqi civilians as human shields and pose as surrendering troops in order to ambush coalition forces. In short they have no moral compunction whatsoever.
What we don't (and can't know) is how the Iragi people will react to the "invaders". So long as the possibility of Ba'ath party control and Sadaam's control exists we cannot know how the people of Iraq will really react. They must first be freed before their true feelings can even be known.
Hopefully they will react positively. They have suffered through wars for over 20 years now, unceasing, unrelenting poverty and the vicious rule of a horrible dictator who would kill them at the drop of a hat. Hopefully the prospect of a better life will temper the anger they feel toward the occupation force and allow them to pursue self-governing rule.
Will it cost a lot of money? Of course it will. But the UN costs us a lot of money and does nothing useful for us. A more temperate Iraq could solve a lot of the tensions in the Middle East and prove to the Arab world that Americans have no ambitions other than to see them enjoy they same freedoms that we do.
As far as the question of how long we will be there goes, we're still in Germany 55 years after WWII. Why I'll never know, but I guess Europe doesn't have the spine to do it without us (or they enjoy having us spend the money to do it and they like our soldiers spending their money over there.)
We're still in Korea 50 years after that war. Perhaps some day our troops will be able to come home and we won't be forced to defend half the world's people. Who knows? I'd be tickled pink if we could get all the troops home from far flung locations all over the world.
But I can't help but think that whatever the cost of the restoration of Iraq is, it will be worth it, both for the Iraqis and for America. Hopefully it will increase the stability in the region and encourage a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Hopefully it will also show the Arab world that we not only don't hate them, but we wish them the same freedoms that we have.
Perhaps I'm still too idealistic after all these years, but look at the countries we've fought over the years. They are all allies now. That should tell you something about the greatness of America. After all, we are German, British, French, Italian, Porteguese, Spanish, Swedish, Canadian, Albanian, Serb, Croat, Australian, Pakistani, Indian, Iraqi, Iranian, Saudi, Palestinian, Israel, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist and Jew, all living in peace together.
Would to God it were the same everywhere in the world.
As I posted on the blog the night the war started I pray that our hopes and dreams of peace and freedom for the people of Iraq will come true and that only good and not evil will come from our actions.
P.S. Oxfam America is accepting donations to begin humanitarian relief. There's a link in the right sidebar on the main blog page. I'll hope you'll all join me in supporting their efforts.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15503
I wish I could share your certainty. Unfortunately, I also believe that past actions are the most accurate predictors of the future (the best we have, not absolute). In that regard, a short quote from Ms. Molly Ivins, 20 Mar, 2003:
"I hate to rain on the administration's parade, but we're not even out of Afghanistan after more than a year, and that's a much smaller job. In fact, we don't seem to have control of much in Afghanistan beyond Kabul.
Poor Hamid Karzai was back in Washington last week, looking for money.
Turns out the White House forgot to ask Congress for any new money for his country -- oops, short attention span.
Rep. Jim Kolbe of Arizona managed to get $435 million put in Afghanistan, acting on his own initiative. "
This seems to be a pattern.
let's please nip in the bud this newly coined "pro-defense" label for the hawks, or we all may choke on the puke of its hypocrisy).
The pro-war folks love to say that the peace side "has no alternative" or that they must reckon the "cost of inaction". In fact, those in favour of peace, including many at the UN, have proposed
numerous alternatives and many courses of action. One need only read through the articles at a site such as www.znet.org to find many.
History has shown that not only do peace and prosperity lead to the removal of dictators from within more readily than war, despair, and poverty, but also that U.S. intervention around the world has almost never led to the establishment of democracy. On the contrary, it most often leads to the opposite -- the deposing of democratic governments and the installation of dicatatorial regimes favourable to U.S. "interests" (which is exacty how Saddam himself got into power). It's happening right now in Venezuela, in an all too familiar pattern.
Other examples include Chile, Haiti, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Iran, and many, many others. Here is just one relevant link:
"A Century Of U.S. Interventions"
The war fans would have us believe that war is inevitable and necessary at times, just like death and sickness. I don't believe that is so. Advances in communication and destructive technologies, as well as advances in our thinking as a species, are capable of rendering war obsolete. It should be as unthinkable to unleash war upon Iraq as it is
now to attack Pennsylvania or Manitoba. Today we can pick up a phone and talk to someone in Iraq instantly, we can read their blogs, we can
even videoconference with them. Visitors to Iraq talk of the kindness and hospitatlity they received, the beautiful children they met and played with, the regular working men and women they befriended. The same is true of the U.S. No surprise there -- around the world people are basically decent and friendly by nature.
Modern communication technology and global travel makes this basic truth clearer every day. Saddam may be an evil dictator, Bush may be
an evil pretender to the presidency, but their nations' citizens are regular nice people just like you and me, and to kill them by proxy, with our tax dollars, for our benefit (fill that SUV with premium!), is as morally abhorrent as to walk into their home with a machine gun and kill them ourselves.
Recently an organization of U.S. military veterans called "Veterans Call To Conscience" released an open
letter to today's U.S. troops in Iraq. Read it. Even if you disagree with my thesis that war can and should be made obsolete, I hope you will acknowledge that there can exist such a thing
as an "unjust war". The great majority of the world's people believe the U.S. invasion of Iraq to be just that -- an unjust war. And what the veterans say below is true of any unjust war:
"There is no honor in murder. This war is murder by another name. When, in an unjust war,
an errant bomb dropped kills a mother and her child it is not "collateral damage," it is murder. When, in an unjust war, a child dies of dysentery because a bomb damaged a sewage treatment plant, it is not "destroying enemy infrastructure," it is murder. When, in an unjust war, a father dies of a heart attack because a bomb disrupted the phone
lines so he could not call an ambulance, it is not "neutralizing command and control facilities," it is murder. When, in an unjust war, a thousand poor farmer conscripts die in a trench defending a town they have lived in their whole lives, it is not victory, it is murder."
necessary at times, just like death and sickness. I don't believe that
is so. Advances in communication and destructive technologies, as well
as advances in our thinking as a species, are capable of rendering war
obsolete. I pray that one day this will be true, but it is simply not yet so. People are still willing to kill others over race, religion, land, money, water and many other things. As long as that persists, in any society that is not toally totalitarian & controlled, war is possible.
You speak of vistits - Saddam restricts them, monitors them, and, if they are official, insures that nothing "untoward" is said, and punishes and murders people if it is.
You speak of communication - see above.
A slogan I have heard is "Let the People of Iraq choose". They have, regularly. In fact, I believe Saddam was elected with 99% of the vote last election. Of course, no one ran against him.
As to the unjust war - I do acknowledge that such a thing is possible. Saddam did it in 1991. But this war?? One in which plans are constructed based on the premise "Minmize civilian casualities, even at the price of endangering our goals"? One in which the attacker does his best not to hurt a child, and the defender has masked men threating people to go and fight or be killed on the spot? One in which the attacker take 5000+ prisoners and endeavors to treat them s well as his own men, save for their imprisonment, and the defender shoots prisoners of no propaganda use?
War can be unjust, but it can also be necessary. It is a sad and terrible thing.
AND TO MEASURE IT WITH NUMBERS, AS IF WE DARE TO WEIGH VALUES IN HUMAN LIVES, IS OUTRAGEOUS. and sad, and diminishes us all.
I apologize if I have offended anyone. I did not intend to. Passion speaks,at times a bit too loudly.
1 URL to support the above:
http://assyrianchristians.com/i_was_wrong_mar_26_03.htm
As to the unjust war - I do acknowledge that such a thing is possible. Saddam did it in 1991. But this war?? One in which plans are constructed based on the premise "Minmize civilian casualities, even at the price of endangering our goals"? One in which the attacker does his best not to hurt a child, and the defender has masked men threating people to go and fight or be killed on the spot? One in which the attacker take 5000+ prisoners and endeavors to treat them s well as his own men, save for their imprisonment, and the defender shoots prisoners of no propaganda use?
Oh puh-leeze! First off, listing Saddam's evils does nothing to justify this war. Two wrongs don't make a right, and there were many other ways to deal with the situation than invasion.Second, please don't give me the list of fictitious reasons that the Bush and Blair administrations have offered for this war, because it's all lies and propaganda. Do you really think Bush cares one whit for democracy or the people of Iraq, or the people of the U.S. either (except those who are rich enough to buy his influence)? Get real.
This war is a bloody and greedy grab for the oil of Iraq, and beyond that, for strategic dominance and control over the Middle East, and through control of its oil, the rest of the world. That is the bottom line, and the plans to do so have been formed over a long time. 9/11 gave the U.S. the pretext to make their latest assault upon the Middle East, but they would have found or invented another, just as Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1991, which the U.S. gave a nod and wink to, was their pretext for that phase of establishing military control over the region. They were going to have democratic elections in "liberated" Kuwait too -- hasn't happened yet.
The naivety of many on the pro-war side astounds me. Saddam is an evil bastard, no doubt, there's no need to prove that, but the U.S. has been more than happy to do business with, protect, and install any number of equally evil bastards over the years. In fact, the last thing the U.S. really wants in the Middle East these days is anything resembling a true democracy (which would be more than the U.S. citizens themselves have anyway), because a democratically elected government would almost certainly be opposed to the U.S. and its plans for the region, for very good reasons.
Assuming the whole thing doesn't spin out of control into WW III, the most likely outcome is a the installation of a new dictator, "elected" in the manner of other so-called U.S.-protectorate "democracies", who will serve the American's interests first, his own second, and the people of Iraq not at all. Just like Saddam was before the U.S. decided it wanted a new arrangement without him.
It will take a globabl uprising and concerted and sustained effort to root out the true "evil" behind world affairs today -- the neoconservative transnational corporate elite carrying forward the bloody imperialism of the last few centuries, now accelerating to a crisis point. Luckily, the forces of opposition are rapidly reaching critical mass as well, and the Internet is no small part of that transformation. Heady times lie before us, let's not lose sight of who the true enemy is (hint: Saddam and the U.S. are both on the same side in this larger conflict, while we and the people of Iraq are on the other).
- Do you mean these things are not going on or that these are not the reasons for war?If you mean these are not the reasons, I accept the likelyhood of motivations beyond my knowledge, if not my paranoia. But these things are happening, should be stopped, and while 2 wrongs don't make a right - not helping suffering people is wrong and not trying to help just lets that continue! (of course it is also totally subjective and a terrible way to measure the validity of war). However, if you mean these things are not going on...I'm sure you don't, as the things Saddam's regime does to his people are patently terrible, and far worse then anything the US Goverment does, even if (God forbid) PATRIOT 2 were to pass.Second, please don't give me the list of fictitious reasons that the Bush and Blair administrations have offered for this war, because it's all lies and propaganda.
The Middle East has at least 1 true democracy. Israel. Crazy as we are, our votes count, as do those of our cousins. True does not mean perfect or even near-perfect, but it's there.The naivety of many on the pro-war side astounds me. Saddam is an evil bastard, no doubt, there's no need to prove that, but the U.S. has been more than happy to do business with, protect, and install any number of equally evil bastards over the years. In fact, the last thing the U.S. really wants in the Middle East these days is anything resembling a true democracy (which would be more than the U.S. citizens themselves have anyway), because a democratically elected government would almost certainly be opposed to the U.S. and its plans for the region, for very good reasons.
For what reasons would a democracy in the Middle East necessarily oppose the US? While there is certain to be disagreement on all kinds of issues, knowing the disagreements in advance assumes you know the plans. I do not feel that you do, nor the the US is as war-mongering or tyrannical as you seem to express.
I certainly do not. I hope one day to see many democratic countries in the region that would do as their people will, grow, flourish and have peace.
What about Kosovo? What about Nazi Germany? In these cases, inaction was far more costly in human life than early action would have been.
The United States has figured out how to effectively wage war while minimizing civilian death (although Saddam's Fedayeen are countering that with their perfidious use of civilian dress and human shields). Any civilian death, any death, is tragic, but if one honestly looks at the numbers, it becomes clear that the Saddam's death toll is almost unmatchable. I am no fan of Bush, but after listening to the stories of countless Iraqi exiles, I have concluded that this war is the right thing to do--that it will ultimately save many more lives than it takes. That is why I believe the antiwar side needs to assess the cost of inaction. Of course, inaction doesn't directly kill any one, but if it allows killing by others, the end result is the same--dead people are just as dead. What proposals did the peace protesters have for helping the people suffering under Saddam? I heard a lot of them say, "Oh, we hate Saddam, too," but none of them had any realistic alternative plan for dealing with him. They kept saying it was up to the Iraqis to get rid of him. This reminded me of Marie Antoinette's statement when told the people were starving: "Let them eat cake!"
As for a long term commitment in Iraq by the U.S., it sounds good on paper, but we already have a big PR problem in the region. Don't you think we should try to get the UN involved ASAP and let them be the administrators of the peace? If the U.S. tries to stay and run Iraq, I think we will run into even more problems due to resentment of our hegemony. In fact, although I'm with Bush on the war issue, I am very much afraid his administration may botch the peace.
By the way, I have never visited your site before--it's neat.
Let's say that the U.S. does leave and a small, ineffective U.N. presence is established. A radical movement under a Bin Laden type becomes popular and decides to take revenge on the U.S. in any way it can. At the current time, Iraq poses no proven danger to anyone outside its borders. That would not be true of the radical regime. Would you still believe that Iraq is better off than we found it?
What about the situation in North Korea? Now that's truly Stalinesque. Kim Jong-Il's brutality makes Saddam Hussein look like an amateur. Do you advocate war on North Korea too? What about Syria? China? The dozens of other states suffering under brutal dictators? How do you propose that we pay for this endless series of wars of liberation not to mention to reconstruction afterwards.
I'm sorry, Martha. I respect you views but I simply do not find them realistic.
What about the situation in North Korea? Now that's truly Stalinesque. Kim Jong-Il's brutality makes Saddam Hussein look like an amateur. Do you advocate war on North Korea too? What about Syria? China? The dozens of other states suffering under brutal dictators? How do you propose that we pay for this endless series of wars of liberation not to mention to reconstruction afterwards.
Al-Munaqabah, I have a question:If you are correct, how should we, as well meaning people, confront evil when we see it?
Seriously. (and if you can give me a short answer that works for all problems, other then calling on the Divine & Infinite for deliverance and assitance, let me know!
I don't claim to have all the answers, far from it, however I feel that there are many solutions we might try. Direct diplomacy, working with the neighboring countries (whether they serve as intermediaries or put regional pressure on a dictatorship), building up international organizations and alliances, and the like. On a more personal level, we can support the work of non-governmental organizations to bring aid to people or to bring information, or simply to help them escape. If I took more time to think about this, I could no doubt come up with a longer list; this is just my immediate response.
Maybe it's a failure of my thought process or my imagination but I really don't understand why war should be a first choice not a last resort.
Do you really believe after what's happened in the last months that the U.N. will receive the financial and political support it would need to do the job right? I just don't see that.
Actually, I'm not terribly optimistic about it. I am very afraid that we may be opening a Pandora's box, and I am afraid that Bush, et. al., may not have the diplomatic prowess or the will to involve the UN appropriately....but, one thing to remember is that we do vote for our leaders every four years. I think most people in the U.S. want the UN to be strong. We recognize that the whole world resents and fears our country, and that is not a good thing. If the Bush administration can't figure out how to walk softly, I believe it will be voted out in 2004.At the current time, Iraq poses no proven danger to anyone outside its borders. That would not be true of the radical regime. Would you still believe that Iraq is better off than we found it?
Saddam has proven himself willing to invade other countries, to torture, and to kill thousands without compunction. The man is a psychopathic megalomaniac. If he were to remain in power, all he would need is the opportunity and the resources, and I have no doubt he would be happy to kill as many people as suited his schemes. Frankly, it's hard to imagine anyone who would be worse.What about the situation in North Korea? Now that's truly Stalinesque. Kim Jong-Il's brutality makes Saddam Hussein look like an amateur. Do you advocate war on North Korea too? What about Syria? China? The dozens of other states suffering under brutal dictators? How do you propose that we pay for this endless series of wars of liberation not to mention to reconstruction afterwards.
Obviously, we will need to deal with North Korea differently. There's no question of liberating the North Koreans, because we can't without risking nuclear war--an unacceptable risk to that region and to us. In Iraq, because Saddam does not have nukes, we have a much lesser risk. Also, after so many years under Kim il-Sung and Kim Jong-il, North Koreans, sadly, are even more repressed than the Iraqis. I have heard stories that many North Korean defectors have a very difficult time adjusting to life in South Korea--they can't handle the freedom and don't have the skills or self-motivation to make good after so many years of being told what to do. As for Syria, China, and the rest, we have to try, when we can, to use diplomacy and economic pressure and economoic incentives to bring about change. I believe we tried to do this with Iraq, but it just didn't work. Partly because we didn't have the rest of the world complying with the sanctions, but mostly because Saddam would have none of it. I don't want our country to be constantly going to war. I do believe there are usually other solutions. I have a slight hope that we will be able to turn around Iraq once we get rid of Saddam and the Baathists, and that this may serve as an effective deterrent to other dictatorial regimes.
We have heard all the reasons eg., Weapons of Mass Desruction (WHERE ARE THEY?), regime change, libeate the Iraqi people (when has the US ever been concerned about LIBERATING people?), contol of the oil reserves etc etc.
In the meantime many innocent Iraqi people are being slaughtered through misadventure or from the result of carpet bombing.
I despise Saddam and his team of murderers. But bombing the shit out of innocents is surely not the answer.
The USA is hated by the Arab world. Why? Think about this.
The solution is clear...
Bomb the population with butter, supplies, food and kindness.
Distribute some of that obscene wealth to assist the people of the region to regain their self respect and to begin to trust the Western world again. (This will be hard following the betrayal by the US in the last Gulf war).
Mr multi-billionaire Microsoft where are you?
By bombing civilians, regardless of their so-called "smart bombs" which are in theory supposed to pick out only military targets, the attack on the Iraqi people is only creating many more thousands of Bin Ladens in the long run.
If a foreign force attacked Australia just because they didn't like the policies of John Howard, our Prime Minister, I too would fight to protect my country and my family, just as the Iraqi people are doing at present, even though I do not agree with Howard's stance in this war.
I consider the Iraqi people very brave, albeit misguided in following the orders of Saddam. After all, he is their leader and has exerted a huge influence on the population by means of propoganda and coercion. They may not like him, but that is all they have!
In short, the USA must change from invading aggressor to a nation capable of offering HELP and assistance to countries who are under the control of dictators.
Waging war is not the answer!
Let us return to diplomacy!