perfidy

I think we will put a lot more effort into reconstruction in Iraq. Although we have lots of money, it isn't infinite. As long as Afghanistan is not home to terror training camps, it will remain peripheral. Iraq is rather more important.

I think that there is little reason to fear that the new Iraqi government will be worse than Saddam's regime. The stories that are coming out, like the big CNN "we didn't tell you this when it mattered, but…" story, among others - prove that any new regime would have to go to extreme lengths to be worse.

Also, there are reports (sorry, can't find the link) that many of the more recent civilian casualties are the result of Republican guard and secret police pushing people in front, or threatening their families if they don not attack the Americans. I don't think the increase is particularly alarming, except perhaps to CNN.

?? They say, "Here's why we're going to war: WMD, 9/11, Saddam's a repugnant fuckwit." You say, "Why are you going to war?" There doesn't have to be some fevered conspiracy amongst Jewish Neocon Operatives, to set up worldwide American Hegemony. I think they have been straight with us - and are withholding only the plan for reconstruction, and any plans for other targets.

Because I haven't commented on anyone else's posts for far too long, here are some thoughts, replies and comments on youse guys posts over the last couple weeks. 

To Mike's counterpoint to Mark Steyn: 

No one suggests that we should be giddy simply because civilian casualties are light. But, we should be happy that we can remove an evil dictator at so light a cost to his victims. Every death is a tragedy, but it is good that there are so few of them. Also, there is proof that there is a connection between Al Quaida and Iraq. Al Quaida operatives were given refuge in Iraq, and we have found (and destroyed) several large terror training camps. Also, the fact that the Baathists are secular and the Al Quaida fundamentalist is no barrier to their cooperation. Remember, Saddam's government has paid 35 million dollars to the families of suicide bombers in the West Bank, many of whom were members of the very fundamentalist group Islamic Jihad. It is, after all, an old Islamic proverb, that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Although it is too early to tell at this point, it doesn't look like we are radicalizing the Iraqi citizenry, who seem quite glad to have us there, and Saddam gone. 

Again on WCM: 

De Genova's comments were reprehensible, indeed. And kudos to Foner for actually calling him on it. But the whole thing made me think - this is an anti-war movement, but not a peace movement. They are against American involvement, but willing to countenance the brutality of the Saddam's regime. There was a German resistance movement in WWII, but could it have liberated the German people from Hitler's regime without outside help? Mike is certainly right that comments like those piss people off. Wishing for the deaths of Americans certainly makes his anti war stance seem rather less credible, as well. 

But is nothing served by death, anywhere? Are not some things worthy of sacrifice? Freedom is certainly worth sacrifice. Nothing of value is without cost. We have to always be deeply aware of the cost, and remember who paid. Freedom is one of those things. Many have and will continue to give cynical motives for our war in Iraq, but the real benefit will be to the Iraqis, who free of Saddam might be able to live ordinary lives, in liberty. 

To Johnny, on increasing dovishness: 

How do you feel now, now that we have found chemical weapons and terror training camps? And remember, Bush has been talking about regime change for over a year - regime change was only ever the means to eliminate the threat of terror, and WMD. 

To Johnny, on the "as in not funny" nature of the press: 

The media is a collection of old women, who flutter and shriek at the slightest change in temperature, conditions, or movement. So of course they would rave about the justthatbuilding bomb, and then the MOAB. And rave about blinding advances, then twenty minutes later cry "quagmire." Also, the reason you're gotten no firm news is because the military pulled the biggest snow job in military history. The embeds are like headlights to the media deer. Immediacy, vivid images, and "you're right there" reporting consume the media's attention, while the army is able to move whole divisions without anyone in the media noticing. Suckers - gotta hand to the military for cleverness on that one. 

To Johnny, on the media polls: 

Reminds me of a something that happened during a political discussion with our friend Burton. We was advocating some risky liberal scheme, one that would give decision making powers from the general citizenry and vest it in some government agency. His basic justification was, "75% of people are idiots." I argued with his plan, and Burton got the idea that I disagreed with assessment of the intelligence of the American populace. A day later, I was complaining to Mike about Washington drivers, and he expressed surprise - "Well, you disagreed with my 75% - why complain now?" I said, "Mike, if anything, I think the percentage is higher, but they still have the right to be stupid however they want. That's what liberty means." Hardesty's corollary to Voltaire's observation: the true test of someone's commitment to liberty is how stupid or offensive someone has to be before you want to start regulating their behavior. 

From everything I'm hearing, Patriot II is gonna be a nightmare. But then, I'm still complaining about RICO statutes and civil forfeiture. 

To Johnny on AA: 

The United States, as a whole, should never be color blind. The U.S. government, and the law, should. The only way to end discrimination is to well, end discrimination. The quote you added hits it right on the head - these are cultural and moral issues, not legal ones. Therefore, stop the legal wrangling so that we can deal with these issues where they should be dealt with. 

Patriot II needs to be killed dead. Here's something the liberals could actually be useful on - rather than waving puppetheads and smelling funny in public. Republicans are often too willing to sacrifice freedom for security in this realm. Economically, of course, it's the other way around. 

This is where limited government should really, really come into play. What part of the constitution, and I'd like an exact quote, does this bill get its authorization from? 

To Johnny on Forests and Trees: 

I would argue that the military plan we used did take the political goal into account. However, just like the military plan, you can't publish the political plan in advance, for fear of rendering it useless. n.b. I think this classifies as a world class cakewalk. 

To Mike on Patriot II: 

Like many conservatives (as opposed to mere Republicans) I worry a lot about civil liberties. I think the Drug War has been a civil liberties disaster. The erosion of our constitutional rights has been scary. This threatens further erosions. Like Franklin said, those who trade liberty for security will soon have neither. I would like to have our representatives see that it is our freedom and liberty that is the best defense against these threats (at least internally - the U.S. Army and Navy are better for overseas.) Perhaps the best example was the passengers on flight 93. While I might be safe under this administration, as time goes on, we would all be targets. How long would I last if Gore became president? We could have adjoining cells. 

To Johnny on RIAA: 

I think it falls into the same category as Patriot II. 

I have to pee. More later.

Here are a few thoughts on the Bucketman's most recent post. A horrific regime is on the ropes, not extinguished. The destruction of that regime is certainly in the offing, but the war is long from over. The issue is, what will follow that regime? Given Johno's attention to the Afghanistan situation, the United States should take care that they do not forget about or abandon or Iraq as it did with Afghanistan. It remains to be seen whether the new Iraqi government is better or worse.

Casualties, in terms of numbers, have been extremely light compared to other armed conflicts. But this is a little too intellectual for me. Iraqi civilians have died, such as the three people who died when American troops opened fire on their car. I don't know what happened to the little girl. These are two incidents, not high numbers of civilian casualties, but it doesn't matter so much to me. People have died. Buckethead has argued that occasionally good people must be blown up to serve a greater good. The removal of Hussein will only serve a greater good if it does not result in leadership that's even worse. It's a wait and see. But nevertheless, if I was the father of the little girl who was shot by Marines, I wouldn't give a damn about the greater good. Civilian deaths have not been many, but they have been there. People aren't statisitics, they're people. That's stating the obvious, but sometimes it goes unrecognized.

You haven't gone off the deep end in thinking that eliminating regimes would be good for the United States in general, provided those regimes are followed by a government that isn't hostile to the United States. A democratic government in those countries could just as easily be hostile to the U.S. as the current regimes. Just look at France and Germany. A puppet state is unlikely, given the fact that so many countries would scream bloody murder if the administration tried to pull that one. You haven't gone off the deep end in thinking that elimination of regimes would be good for the people who live there. But it depends on what follows. It could be good for them, it could be just as bad, it could be worse. We just have to wait and see. The U.S. looks like it's already dropped the ball in Afghanistan. Maybe they'll pay more attention to what happens in post-war Iraq. Like everything else, it remains to be seen.

After three weeks, we have seen the complete destruction of all major Iraqi army formations, low casualties amongst both coalition forces and Iraqi civilians, minimal collateral damage to civilian infrastructure, including especially the oil fields in both north and south, and, once assured that Saddam was truly history, celebrations in the streets by joyous Iraqi civilians.

The doomsayers who cried quagmire on day five of the war, and those who predicted a Stalingrad (ve vill not haff much fun in Stalingrad, no.) when we moved into Baghdad were proved dramatically wrong. This war has, as much as any conflict in history, gone almost exactly according to plan, and met even the most optimistic goals of the planners.

A horrific regime has been extinguished, and without having to go through the trouble of annihilating the nation it rules in the process. The military has been talking about a revolution in military affairs for over a decade now, and it appears that they may be right. The advent of information age weaponry is transforming the way that the United States wages war. Our capabilities are increasing, even in an era when we are spending less, proportionally, on our military than we did throughout the course of the Cold War.

While the precision weapons that we have deployed have received the lion's share of media attention, it is important to remember what has really changed. The 2000 pond bombs that we drop our essentially the same as a 2000 pound blockbuster used in WWII - a metal casing surrounding a large lump of high explosive. What is different is the guidance package. The GPS guidance system used in the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) or Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW); or the laser guidance system that was first used back in the '91 war are the real change - the thing that allows us to thread a needle with a bomb dropped from 20,000 ft. We have even started using concrete bombs - "inert" bombs that, when dropped from fifty thousand feet will utterly destroy a tank while leaving everything around it untouched. (These and other weapons systems are described here, at the Federation of American Scientist's webpage.)

These guidance systems are a product of the advanced technologies that our nation produces with no thought for military applicability. The computer systems developed for the civilian world are being adopted by the military wholesale, and this is where the true revolution is occurring. It is the communications and networking technologies that are making our military so effective, and so lethal. These communications systems disseminate intelligence throughout the entire armed forces - allowing a sergeant in an armor unit to directly call on artillery in his own unit, bombs from Air Force or Naval fighters, and cruise missiles from Navy subs or destroyers. It allows the military to rapidly coordinate fire from all branches on one spot for maximum effect, or on a thousand points at once for maximum enemy confusion.

The army has installed the IVIS system on its armored vehicles. This Inter Vehicular Information System instantly transmits intelligence gained by one vehicle to every other vehicle in the unit. What one tank crew knows, every tank crew knows. Initial tests at the National Training Center at Ft. Irwin showed that units equipped with this system were five times more lethal than units equipped exactly the same in every other respect. This is because of the coordination that the system allows. No time is wasted by commanders explaining the situation - every one has the picture, and has probably already begun taking the correct action before the commander even gives the order.

This coordination and flexibility is what makes our military so effective. And over the next few years, similar systems, such as the Landwarrior system, will give the same capabilities to individual infantryman. New communication and reconnaissance systems will only increase the trend that we have seen in Iraq. The United States, without even really trying, is widening the gap between our military and the armed forces of even the other industrialized nations.

I think that this growing disparity between the effective combat power of the United States and that of the rest of the world will lead to more interventions. We will do it not only because we can, but because we can do it easily. This will no doubt bother many. But how many of those bothered are bothered by the application of American military power abroad itself, or rather because of who sits in the Oval Office? Many who complain about the current war had no problem with Kosovo, Serbia, Haiti, and any number of other interventions launched by the previous administration. Personally, I have no problem with America using its power to advance its interests in general, but in general we have used our power to bring freedom and democracy to other parts of the world. As long as we have an ethical basis for intervention, and the results of that intervention remain positive, I say keep going.

We can't bring peace, order and democracy to every nation on Earth. But for every one that we do, its that many millions more people who don't live in places where leaders personally feed dissidents into wood chippers feet first. This is a good thing to fight against. The nations that fall into this category are sadly numerous. But there is a subset of them that also pose a threat to us, personally. The top of that list is North Korea, Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

Maybe I've gone off the deep end, but I think that eliminating these regimes in the same manner that we eliminated Saddam's would be good for us, and good for the citizens of those nations.

Mike, your mother was a hamster, and your father... 

well, you know. 

The Boston Phoenix, a newspaper whose reporting is always cutting-edge but often gratingly shrill, writes this week about reconstruction in Afghanistan. Taking a glass-half-empty approach to the issue that some may scoff at, the Phoenix nevertheless argues convincingly that Bush is abandoning any serious efforts to rebuild the nation, and wonders whether Iraq will follow a similar pattern of Reconstruction. 

White House officials apparently forgot to request funds to rebuild the country they bombed to such hoopla shortly after the September 11 attacks. Congressional staffers who caught the slip eventually requested $300 million for reconstructing Afghanistan. It's a lot more than [the 73 cents [I left the house with this morning], but less than a scratch on the bumper of the president's $75 billion initial request to fund a new war in Iraq. . . .  

At present, however, the only things that seem to be enduring in Afghanistan are the chaos and violence that have afflicted that country over the last 34 years, which have seen an invasion by the Soviet Union, bitter internecine warfare, brutal unification under the repressive Islamic fundamentalism of the Taliban, and a US military campaign to oust that regime. To wit:

• Far from achieving a stable environment for reconstruction and democratization, US troops and international peacekeepers have come under increasing attack by remnants of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and disgruntled warlords. Tribal unrest and power struggles between warlords who have not declared outright opposition to the US or the Afghan central government have undermined the formation of even a loose central governmental structure.
• Due to the continuing instability and violence, much of Afghanistan is considered "unsafe" for the United Nations (UN), the International Commission of the Red Cross (ICRC), and other non-governmental aid agencies. On March 29, the ICRC shut down all its field operations after the execution-style killing of one of its employees by Taliban fighters who ambushed an ICRC convoy.
• If instability is leading to the possible reformation of terrorist cells, it's also aiding in the resurgence of Afghanistan's drug trade. In March, Afghanistan's finance minister warned a donor conference in March that a lack of "predictable finance" would lead the country to backslide into a "narco-mafia state."
• The much-vaunted goals of democratization, particularly enhancing the role of women in Afghan society, are also suffering as a result of continued instability in areas outside the Afghan capital of Kabul  - the only city with a strong international presence. As a March report by the International Crisis Group on "Women and Reconstruction" bluntly noted: "A renewed and expanded international commitment to security is urgently needed if the limited gains women have made in Kabul are to be institutionalized and emulated in other Afghan cities." . . . .

In short, Afghanistan may be largely free of the Taliban's iron-fisted repression, but that doesn't mean the country is secure. Rather, Islamic fanaticism has made way for a more traditional patchwork of violent and competing regional fiefdoms. At best, international forces maintain uneasy oversight of the country; at worst, they are ready targets for Afghan warlords.... The piece finishes up with a summations of the "lessons of Afghanistan" and how the administration has and has not applied them in Iraq that I find less meaty, but the article as a whole is an interesting read nonetheless. 

So, to sum up: Afghanistan is now resuming its historical patterns, the efforts to institute a strong free national government notwithstanding, and Iraq could go down the same road if help is not given in the mid- to long-term. Many would argue that now that the Taliban is mostly gone, it's up to Afghanistan to rebuild their own country. Well sure. The US isn't the boss of Afghanistan. But rebuilding would be an easier task, though, if the US and other coalition nations were to provide monetary and advisory aid to the struggling nation, as well as help in rebuilding national infrastructures. Without this kind of lasting assistance, the likelihood of a stable Afghanistan-- the showpiece of the new style of American foreign relations-- is ever more remote. Same goes for Iraq. I'm very very glad Hussein's power has been broken and the Iraqi people freed from his egomaniacal brutality. Now for the hard part. 

A last note: I see in the Phoenix that Sonic Youth are playing with Wilco later this spring in Manchester. Woo hoo!!

Johno, telling someone to stick it up their ass in Arabic is not to be done lightly. It is reserved for family members and people you are willing to fight to the death. That may be redundant. But still, those are definitely fighting words. I cut off your hands! You are infidel! Your sheep gives bad milk that makes foul-smelling cheese!

Oh, come on. I couldn't possibly take that personally.

As to the question of thumbs-up intended as "Ayyy!" or "Up your ass," a friend of mine has advanced a third possiblity. It could be both. Iraqis might be giving American troops a thumbs-up, knowing full well what it means in American culture, while simultaneously covering their own tizuk. Should Iraqis face a return of Hussein's regime in some way, even if for a brief period, they can say that they did not celebrate American advances, but rather told the Americans to stick it up their asses.

On a very serious note, CNN has thus far reported alarming increases in the number of civilians wounded or killed by American troops, fearful of suicide attacks. In one incident, American troops manning a checkpoint shouted at a driver, in English, to move his vehicle in a different direction. When the driver was unable to follow commands in a language he didn't understand, the troops opened fire on a vehicle, a very contained space, for several minutes. All three occupants of the vehicle were killed, and the initial report was that they had no weapons. Troops claimed that they saw muzzle flashes.

In another CNN report, a little girl, found by a reporter who risked being shot himself, and a woman were seriously wounded by American Marines. The little girl sustained a severe head wound. A Marine medic treated the girl, but only after the reporter brought her to them. When Marines demanded that the cameras be turned off, the reporters pointed out that they had wounded the girl. The reporters were then permitted to film.

Finally, CNN has also reported that no so-called weapons of mass destruction have yet been found. We've had a few posts about just wars. I think just wars must have clear goals, not hidden agendas. Given the protean nature of reasons for war as advertised by the administration (1: Weapons of mass destruction 2: 11 September 2001 3: Liberate Iraq from Hussein), there has been no clear statement from the administration about exactly why this war is being fought. The administration does not have to divulge war plans or information that compromises the position of the military. But it could at least be straight with us as to why this is happening.

Aziz Poonawalla has a great post up about the war that also references Howard Dean* (thanks also to Instapundit for the pointer). From the post:

The images we all saw on television worldwide yesterday will be in our world history books as one of the defining moments of the 21st century. Alongside those of 9-11, yin and yang. I was and still am opposed to war on Iraq - not the idea of war per se, but like Howard Dean, by the route to which we justified and pursued war. But winning the war was never in doubt and my heart is is full of satisfaction at seeing the statues of Saddam fall at last.
I am however quite disappointed by the attitude of many who oppose the war - who seem to have a grudging attitude towards the liberation. IRAQ IS FREE. Regardless of your politics, your principles, your attitudes - this must be the shared event that we all celebrate.

I can't agree more. Read the whole post.

A side note. You know, yesterday I saw maybe the single most iconic moment I've ever seen happen, live, on TV. CNN was showing their standard montage of Iraqis dancing, Iraqis looting government buildings for office chairs and lamps, Iraqis beating pictures of Hussein with their shoes, and so forth. Once, just once, a five-second clip played of a grinning gentleman holding an American flag with a giant golden picture of Rocky Balboa emblazoned across the middle.

The Balboa Doctrine of foreign policy. Perfect. I love it.

* Dean's my big favorite for President in '04. He's not perfect, but he seems to be a thoughtful, honest, and principled Vermont Liberal. A VERMONT Liberal. They are different from Berkeley Liberals.

An interesting editorial from the Guardian Unlimited discussed the parallels between America and Britain's pending occupation of Iraq with the British military occupation of Ireland. According to this article, people in Northern Ireland also welcomed troops in the early Seventies. But before too long, those troops were firing indiscriminately at Irish peaceful protestors in Derry. The article also exposes Ari Fleischer's ignorance of Irish cities.

The New York Times is reporting that the Taliban are consolidating their leadership and positions in Afghanistan with an eye to re-taking the country. The Times reports that police in Kandahar haven't been paid in months, that the foreign material and personnel support promised to maintain security has not materialized, and that the country is in danger of slipping into chaos. The article quotes an Afghani military leader: "'There is no real administration all over Afghanistan, no army, no police.... The people do not want the Taliban, but we have to unite and build, but we are not.'"

I've been reading stories like this for months. I realize that it's a bumpy road to freedom and democracy and cold beer for all, but if Afghani farmers must resort once again to opium production to survive, and the Taliban is able to harrass travellers, isn't that a bit more of a gaping, axle-eating pothole?

Apparently the Army are testing other sites for the presence of chemical weapons. Just the one site so far has been established to be pesticides (thanks, OxBlog!). Wow... the facts change so fast these days! It's hard to know which facts are the real facts!

In other news, Ed, I was on the phone just now and, I don' t know, maybe you called or something... I don't have call waiting or anything... so, if you called just now, I want you to know I'm here, I'm waiting, and I'm ready to hear anything you have to tell me.

Ed?

Ed?

No dice, folks. The exciting suspected chemical weapons cache found yesterday in Iraq turns out to be merely an innocent, quotidian, batch of pesticides.

In other news, I'm still waiting to hear from Ed McMahon.

So NBC last night interrupted the end of my Third Watch program that I love to tell me that Saddam and his brood may be dead. Wow-ee! So many good things happened yesterday-- Let's review! 

1. Saddam Hussein might be dead
2. Coalition forces may have found chemical weapons
3. I got a thing in the mail from Ed McMahon that says I may already be a winner!! 
    

The record setting rapid progress of American forces in Iraq is disconcerting to two groups of people. One, those who feel that they might be next on the list; and two, the American and European left. The fear of the first group is natural, their regimes are on our list. But the supporters of the oppressed and downtrodden workers of the world have no excuse to attack the United States for acting to liberate the oppressed of a fascist regime like Saddam's. All of the Left's favorite victims are especial targets of Saddam's dictatorship. Yet America is attacked as an imperialist. Is it worse that America should exercise her might, or that Iraqis continue to die, be tortured, raped, and brutalized?

One thing is obvious about the anti-war protestors, aside from lack of a keen fashion sense. It is that they are far more anti-American than they are anti-war (let alone pro-peace.) Many freely admit that Saddam is a butchering fascist - but that doesn't stop them from opposing our own Hitler, George W. Bush. This is a complete divorce from any kind of moral reasoning. No sane person can claim that Bush is worse than Hussein, or that the American government is as repressive as Saddam's. The left in Europe and America petulantly insist that America keep jumping through an infinite series of hoops, in the vain hope that this policy will prevent the exercise of American military power, than which nothing could be more evil. The exercise of American military force has been so terrible over the years that millions once enslaved by communism are now free. And South Korea is not in (literal) darkness like North Korea. And Germany isn't killing Jews by the millions. And Japan isn't enslaving all of East Asia. So terrible, in fact, that the one time in the last century that we failed to exercise our military power in full, a million South Vietnamese civilians were slaughtered by our opponents, the peaceful agrarian reformers of the north.

It seems that the only nation that isn't allowed to deal with the problem of Iraq is the one nation that can deal with the problem. The one nation that has proved that it uses force on the whole wisely - to oppose, for lack of a better word, evil. We should be proud that our nation is a natural wrecking ball for totalitarian regimes.

The tragic part of this is that innocents die in the process. Hundreds of thousands of innocent German civilians died in our bombing campaigns over Germany, and likewise in Japan. Very few people argue that this price was not worth paying. When we analyse the moral pros and cons, civilian deaths are most certainly a factor. Miraculously, our technology has advanced to the point where we can utterly destroy a building and leave its neighbors unharmed. This precision allows us to greatly limit the harm to innocents. Our military has, for the last couple weeks been operating under the most extreme rules of engagement ever conceived for an army at war. We may not fire at the enemy if he is behind civilians. We may not destroy buildings if we are not sure that civilians have been evacuated. And so on. Nevertheless, we have conducted a war of unparalleled lethality. My back of the envelope calculations (and supported by the wink and nod from my Marine Major next door neighbor, who works for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) indicate that we are incurring kill ratios against the Iraqi army of 1000:1. (It seems that the Special Republican Guard is "special" in the short bus sense.)

This amazing care that the military shows for the people of Iraq is absolutely not mirrored by the left. The callous disregard for the fates of the people of a nation with an honest to god fascist dictatorship is remarkable - or rather not remarkable, as the press never reports on this. The United States must be the evil party, because, well, the United States is evil. Therefore, we will gloss over any minor shortcomings of people like Saddam, Castro, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, etc. (The Baathist party grew from the influence of the Nazi party, from when Germany ruled Syria and Iraq during the Second World War, after the fall of France.) The ability of the left to fawn over any murderous (socialist) thug simply blows my mind.

As America works to liberate Iraq, a very small number of Iraqi citizens will die. That the war might make us safer is worth that cost. But the benefit to the Iraqis is far greater - they will be free.

The dictatorial leaders of Iran and Syria have both publically announced that they intend to do everything possible to prevent the emergence of a free and prosperous Iraq, and to attack the United States wherever their puny weapons can reach. Syria's Assad proclaimed that Lebanon would be the model for his nation's campaign against the coalition. Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei said that America's presence in Iraq would be even worse for Iran than Saddam, who waged a bloody decade long war against Iran. Iran has gathered terrorist and guerilla forces on its border, and Syria may already have sent terrorists across its border.

The threat of a free Iraq has led these two nations to move from rote propaganda condemnations of the "Great Satan" to the verge of actual hostilities. For those who are already uncomfortable with the fact that America is at war, this will be disturbing. But for a Jacksonian like myself, this is good news. America as a whole is slow to anger, and we have absorbed hundreds of small attacks with little or no reaction. (And, of course, this likely encouraged further attacks.) The attacks on the WTC and Pentagon finally woke people up to the fact that there is in fact a threat, and in fact a rather serious one.

Now that the war is started, I'd like to see it actually finished, not left festering like back in '91. And, as events unfold, "finished" might include Syria and Iran. Iran's population openly loaths the regime - it is likely that the mullahs will be toppled with only minimal effort on America's part. Syria, like Iraq a Baathist dictatorship, might require more effort. Once Iraq is settled, Syria is stuck between Iraq and US naval forces in the Med.

The prospect of further conflict in the Middle East is not something that should be approached recklessly or, god forbid, with glee. I do not relish the idea of more American casualties, or of more civilian casualties in Syria or Iran. Would we have stopped fighting Nazi Germany after liberating France? I think that a similar issue confronts us in the Middle East. The United States has reluctantly undertaken a War on Terror, not just against Al Quaida. We have declared that terrorism, of all kinds, is a target. Syria and Iran are the two largest state supporters of terrorism. When we consider the intersection of two things - direct threat to American citizens by way of Syrian and Iranian sponsored terrorism, and the plight of the citizens of these two repressive governments, I believe that we have an obligation to act, just as we did in Iraq.

We have liberated Afghanistan. Iraq is not far behind. If we can encourage the hundreds of thousands of democracy activists in Iran (brave, brave people - they protest in a nation where protests can get you killed.) to overthrow the mullahs, and depose Assad's facsist government, and encourage reform in Pakistan - we will have helped to create a stretch of free Islamic nations from the Europe to the Indus river. Coincidently, this is roughly the extent of Alexander's Empire. But unlike Alexander, the United States clearly has no imperial aims. We do not plan to incorporate these nations into a new American empire. The US has been taken up the mountain, but we have refused to be tempted. Now some might argue that these new regimes will be part of America's global hegemony - but no more so than France or Germany, who are world famous for toeing the American foriegn policy line. American (and British and Australian) companies will win contracts from the new governments. But is the fact that an American company can make some money dealing with a freely elected representative of the Iraqi people worse than the shady deals that TotalElFina made with Saddam with the collusion of bribed French officials?

If these experiments in liberty amongst the Mohammedans are as successful as Turkey, or South Korea, American national security will be enhanced. We will have helped make hundreds of millions of people citizens of responsible governments - similar to the effect on Eastern Europe after we won the cold war. (Sadly, Russia does not seem to be going far in that direction - perhaps that extra thirty years of communism was too much.) If they could be as successful as Japan, the example that these nations will set might set off reforms in other Islamic nations.

The most crucial of these will be Saudi Arabia. With the largest reserves of oil in the world, Saudi Arabia has a influence on the world economy all out of proportion to the skill or education of its people, its industry or economy, or its contribution to world civilization. Saudi Arabia is a primitive tribal culture sitting on top of a gold mine. It is a perverse welfare state for the rich. Despite the vast amounts of money that oil brought, the Saudis have made no effort to develop an economy. Since the Saudis don't work, over 70% of all jobs in the country are held by foriegners. That percentage jumps to 90% when private sector jobs are examined. And Saudi Arabia undergoing a demographic explosion - half of the population is under 18, and the nation has the highest birth rate of any country outside Africa.

This nation also supplies vast amounts of money to fundamentalist Islamic groups in Saudi Arabia and around the world. We all know that a majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. Most of the detainees at Guantanamo are Saudi. These young Saudis, well educated, entering their twenties and entering an economy specifically designed to not provide jobs for them, are perfect targets for the Wahabbis. Somehow, this must be fixed. Hopefully, it can be fixed without further American intervention. But we won't really be safe from Islamic terrorism until the last sources of funding have been cut off. And that means Saudi Arabia.

This government web site here, counsels citizens on matters relating to terrorist attacks, and how Americans might be prepared in the event of an attack. Duck and cover! For a further explanation of the government's preparation advice, check out this site here. Be prepared. (Second link was dead. -ed.)

This is indeed a serious problem. Unfortunately, there isn't much anyone can do other than writing to people in Congress and voting against those who support it. The civil liberties of Americans and those residing in the U.S., as I stated in a previous post, have been consistently whittled away during my lifetime. Like all humans before us, however, we are all subject to injustices due to circumstances beyond our control. Once the reps have gotten their letters and the votes cast, it's just a matter of finger crossing and hopes for the best. Once again, I lack optimism on this, as well as most other issues. I, as Johno indicated, am the kind of person who contributed money to perhaps the sort of organization that would fall on the wrong side of things under Patriot II. 

Iraq and political goals 

A recent report on PBS Frontline outlined the causal factors and what political goals do exist for the Iraq war. According to the report, members of George Bush the elder's government, who referred to themselves as neo-Reaganites, wanted to seize Baghdad and eliminate Saddam Hussein in 1991. They were checked by Bush the elder, who pursued the limited goal of expulsion from Kuwait. Now, some people who sought the removal of Hussein, such as the current Vice President Richard Cheney and current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, are back in power and employing the attacks of 11 September 2001 as an excuse to remove Hussein from power. I reiterate though, there are no real links between al Qaeda and Hussein. The Ansar camp recently taken is in Kurdish, nominally U.S. controlled territory, spitting distance from the Iranian border. It seems more likely that if any governments supported the Ansar camp, it was probably Iran and not Iraq. 

Maybe After the passage of Patriot II Johnny will have to put his two cents in from a cell. We can carry on discussions by tapping through the wall to each other in Morse code, as in Darkness at Noon. 

SARS, the Iraq war, Patriot II, it all makes things look pretty bleak these days. 
 

Over the last couple weeks I've grown more anti-war, as I'm sure has become clear. I don't think that my drift towards dovishness has much to do with the so-called setbacks that the press and certain pundits keep ranting about. It's a war. Plans change. Rather, my support for the mission of the war depended, and still depends, on the clarity of the Bush administration's reasons for prosecuting the war. It was about chemical weapons, which we hear rather less about these days. It was about Iraqi links to terrorism, which I've heard very little about ever. (That's not to say that someday Saddam couldn't finance a zodiac and a small nuke to motor up the Chesapeake, it's just that I think other scenarios are more pressing, and likely).

So now it's about regime change? Well, I guess so. Whatever.

Mike, your objections about the Middle East are well founded. I think the conflict with Syria will be a test case for what's to come. Will we manage to come to a diplomatic solution for their chicanery? Or will we have to go kick their ass too? If we do, I think that from the P.O.V. of Middle Eastern nations, it will be proof that the USA can no longer be reasoned with. I understand what Mark Steyn is saying. Thousands have not been slaughtered, as far as we know. But four is not a triumph; it's just a smaller tragedy. I'm with Mike on this one.

Did it strike anybody else funny (as in "not funny") that the same week that the press was crowing about the smartness of our smart weapons, and jizzing over their ability to wipe justthatbuilding off the map without so much as taking Old Widow Qumar's laundry off the line next door, the press was also crowing about the giant killin' potential of the spanky-new Mother Of All Bombs, the biggest, killin'est, bombin'est bomb that ever bombed? Just a little message-drift here, is all I'm saying.

A final note: Not a man jack of us here knows a DAMN thing about what's going on in Iraq. Reports vary wildly, as do assessments. Troop movements are noted, then vanish. Do we hold Basra? Do we not? The American media is as biased in its way as Al Jazeera, and at this point I have stopped watching the news out of sheer frustration.

Heretofore I plan not to do any posting about what is currently happening in Iraq, because I have no way of knowing. There's enough real-time warbloggers out there.

Long live Oceania! Down with Eastasia!

Johno, thanks for supplying the link to the article on De Genova, who called for the defeat of American forces in Iraq, and the deaths of American soldiers. Dr. Foner's response to De Genova's remarks, disavowing them, was appropriate. De Genova is perhaps engaging in fashionable anti-Americanism, part of a new radical chic. 

Calling for defeat of the American forces serves no purpose, and is antithetical to the goals of a peace movement. It only alienates American moderates, and possibly anti-war veterans. Just as the four Iraqi citizens who died in the first night of air attacks on Baghdad, American troops have families. It is equally tragic when American soldiers die in combat, or at the hands of suicide bombers. One of the reasons that I oppose this war is because no one should have to die to remove a leader who posed no significant threat to the United States. It should be up to the Iraqis themselves to decide what they want to do about their leadership. It is not the place of the United States to dictate who runs foreign countries; there has been quite enough of that in America's past. 

No good can come of such rantings as those offered by De Genova. He'll only make people angry, and create more support for the war. He also reminds me of people who shoot abortion doctors to preserve life, though that's a weak analogy at best. The goal of an anti-war movement should be to increase the numbers of those who oppose the war, not to increase the numbers of those who support it. But what's most important here is that nothing is served by anyone's death in Iraq. Blood is red, country of origin notwithstanding. 
 

At this stage, only a fool would insist that the United States military waging the war on Iraq wants to kill civilians at this stage. But as the lines between civilian and combatant become increasingly blurred, such as in the recent news of a suicide bombing that killed four American troops, there is no guarantee that will continue. We, that is, American citizens on the home front, cannot be assured that American troops will never attack Iraqi civilians, thinking them guerillas, as they did in Vietnam. Are we sure that there will not be a Mai Lai (sp?) massacre in Iraq? We cannot be sure that it will not happen, we cannot be sure that it will happen. It is useless to debate mights and maybes. Suffice to say, the possibility for higher civilian casualties exist if the U.S. military decides that everyone is a combatant. But that has not happened yet as far as we know, and it might not happen at all. The possibility, however, is something of which to be aware. 

As to the civilian casualties that have occurred, I am uncomfortable with a shrugging of shoulders. To argue that there were only four civilian casualties after the first air attacks on Baghdad is problematic. I seriously doubt that the living relatives of those four dead Iraqi civilians shrugged their shoulders, and said, "Oh, well, my father/mother/brother/spouse whatever is dead, but hey, it's only four people." The reality is that this war has and will continue to kill Iraqi civilians. Granted, the U.S. military is trying to avoid those casualties, certainly in high numbers. There have not been high numbers of civilian dead, but there have been and will be more civilian dead. I disagree that Americans should pat themselves on the back because they've only killed a few people and not a lot of people. Death is always a tragedy, in numbers large or small. 

The counter-argument to my counter-argument may be that a small number of Iraqi civilians have died to prevent another great loss of life in the United States. But there is no evidence to even remotely suggest that Iraqi government or Saddam Hussein himself was at all involved in the attacks of 11 September 2001. The vast majority of participants were Saudi Arabians, who were religious fundamentalists that despise and detest Hussein's secular Ba'ath government. Has the CIA or even the FBI established any coherent links between Hussein and the 11 September 2001 attacks? I have heard President Bush insist that there are strong links between the al Qaeda network and Hussein, but people can just say anything. I reiterate a previous question: exactly what threat did Iraq pose to the United States? My opinion is that we have probably made it more likely, with the invasion of Iraq, that the United States risks further large-scale attacks. Now even more people of the near east are mad at the United States, and others may be radicalized. 

It would be fair to ask, "but Mr. Windy Mike, if there are no solid links between Hussein and al Qaeda, how has the U.S. subjected itself to greater risk?" There are a few scenarios. For example, near easterners who found al Qaeda's fundamentalism distasteful might now be convinced that al Qaeda was right when they accused the United States of trying to occupy the whole of the Middle East. Military action often results in the radicalization of moderates. To draw a parallel, after the Bloody Sunday massacre of 1972, the ranks of the provisional Irish Republican army swelled, and people lost faith in the Northern Irish Civil Rights movement, because moderates were radicalized. Some people in the north of Ireland became convinced that it was impossible to deal with Britain. Apparently, the only thing the British understood was the power of the gun. 

Perhaps, moderate near easterners who have requested fair dealing with United States will similarly become convinced that moderation is useless. Maybe moderate near easterners, who have requested a fair hearing on the Palestinian question, who have asked that the United States withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia, will decide that Uncle Sam is either deaf or ignorant. "If Americans march in with guns," says the moderate near easterner, "maybe guns are all they understand, and maybe guns are the only way to convince them of our position." As I said before mights and maybes are just that, but it is clear that the vast majority of near easterners probably dislike the United States and its Middle Eastern foreign policy intensely. They won't like us more now that the United States has invaded and attacked another Middle Eastern country, Ba'athist secular government notwithstanding. Once more, did that Ba'athist secular government pose a significant threat to the United States? How? To my knowledge, none of these weapons have mass destruction have yet been found by U.S. forces. 

So, exactly why is this war being fought, and exactly why did those four Iraqi civilians have to die, in addition to others? A small number of civilian casualties, and not a large number of civilian casualties, sanitizes the fact that people who probably never even once considered attacking an American have died by American hands. Just because the numbers are small and not big does not change the fact that people have died. Saying, "Oh, well we only killed a few people and not a bunch," is nothing to be proud of. To be fair, Mr. Steyne did not write that he was proud of civilian deaths in small numbers. But for the living relatives and friends of those Iraqi citizens who died, relative numbers don't mean a damn thing. They only know that someone they loved died in a war.

"In so far as the enemy has a strategy, it's to use their own people as hostages. The "pockets of resistance" in the southern towns have been able to make mischief because they blend in with the local populations. They know that Washington and its allies are concerned above all to avoid casualties among Iraqi civilians and, indeed, among your typical Iraqi conscripts. In other words, everything the Baath regime does is predicated on the moral superiority of their foe."

(Emphasis mine) and: 

"When I say the allies are concerned above all to avoid not just civilian but pretty much any enemy casualties, I mean it. Washington has taken a decision to expose its forces to greater danger in order to all but eliminate collateral damage. Hence, the policy of simply bypassing towns rather than seizing them to secure flanks and rears; and of giving every Iraqi the benefit of the doubt, including the fake surrenderers who ambushed the US marines at Nasiriyah. If you can get to a rooftop, you can fire rocket-propelled grenades at the Brits and Yanks with impunity; under the most onerous rules of engagement you could devise, they won't fire back just in case the building you're standing on hasn't been completely evacuated. This is the operational opposite, one should note, of Bill Clinton's Kosovo campaign. A lot of analysts over here are disturbed by this excessive deference to non-military considerations, especially with rumours that the Baathists in their death throes are planning to go chemical. But it's working out swell for the Iraqis. On the first night of "Shock and Awe" in Baghdad, the TV boys' preferred line was, "it looks like Dresden." The next day, the Iraqi foreign minister announced a civilian death toll of ...four. Four? You mean, four thousand? But no. Single figures. Not exactly Dresdenesque, and a long way from the anti-war movement's thoughtful projections. "Thousands will die as - collateral damage,"’ declared Yahya Ibrahim in the New Straits Times. "Tens of thousands will die and the Middle East be plunged into chaos and bloodshed," warned George Galloway. "Why do hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have to die when they're no threat to us?" asked Margo MacDonald in the Edinburgh Evening News. "The United States is about to destroy an entire country and kill 20 per cent of its people," wrote Nicholas Oshukany in Monday's Kitchener Waterloo Record in Canada. That would be just shy of five million dead Iraqis. What a mound of corpses! But the Yanks will have to pick up the pace a bit. Right now, there are so many civilian casualties that, as my compatriot Andrew Coyne puts it, Robert Fisk can personally visit them all.’

I think a lot of people need to take some stress tabs, so that we can talk about things reasonably.