This is a guest post, reprinted (with permission, of course!) from Liberal Catnip. Thanks to Catnip for letting me repost this on “Alas.”
March 19, 2003
President Bush Addresses the Nation
The Oval Office
10:16 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger. […] Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly — yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.
Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory.
My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.
March 19, 2007
Betrayed: The Iraqis who trusted America the most, The New Yorker:
Most of the people Othman and Laith knew had left Iraq. House by house, Baghdad was being abandoned. Othman was considering his options: move his parents from their house (in an insurgent stronghold) to his sister’s house (in the midst of civil war); move his parents and brothers to Syria (where there was no work) and live with his friend in Jordan (going crazy with boredom while watching his savings dwindle); go to London and ask for asylum (and probably be sent back); stay in Baghdad for six more months until he could begin a scholarship that he’d won, to study journalism in America (or get killed waiting). Beneath his calm good humor, Othman was paralyzed—he didn’t want to leave Baghdad and his family, but staying had become impossible. Every day, he changed his mind.
From the hotel window, Othman could see the palace domes of the Green Zone directly across the Tigris River. “It’s sad,” he told me. “With all the hopes that we had, and all the dreams, I was totally against the word ‘invasion.’ Wherever I go, I was defending the Americans and strongly saying, ‘America was here to make a change.’ Now I have my doubts.”
Laith was more blunt: “Sometimes, I feel like we’re standing in line for a ticket, waiting to die.”
ABC News: Voices From Iraq 2007: Ebbing Hope in a Landscape of Loss, ABC News:
Eighty percent of Iraqis report attacks nearby — car bombs, snipers, kidnappings, armed forces fighting each other or abusing civilians. It’s worst by far in the capital of Baghdad, but by no means confined there.
The personal toll is enormous. More than half of Iraqis, 53 percent, have a close friend or relative who’s been hurt or killed in the current violence. One in six says someone in their own household has been harmed. Eighty-six percent worry about a loved one being hurt; two-thirds worry deeply. Huge numbers limit their daily activities to minimize risk. Seven in 10 report multiple signs of traumatic stress. […] The survey’s results are deeply distressing from an American perspective as well: The number of Iraqis who call it “acceptable” to attack U.S. and coalition forces, 17 percent in early 2004, has tripled to 51 percent now, led by near unanimity among Sunni Arabs. And 78 percent of Iraqis now oppose the presence of U.S. forces on their soil, though far fewer favor an immediate pullout.
Iraqis see hope drain away, USA Today:
Some Iraqis say they regret having borne children to be brought up amid such hardship.
Zina Abdulhameed Rajab, a Shiite doctor, is so alarmed by the children she has treated who were injured on their way to school that she is keeping her 2- and 4-year-old sons at home. Her mother has moved in to help babysit.
“Whenever I watch my kids laughing or playing, I can’t be so happy from inside my heart because I don’t know what the next day will bring,” she said. “I really regret the birth of my kids here.”
She added: “I wish I could put them back inside me so I would know all the time where they are and how they are doing.”
The regrets of the man who brought down Saddam, The Guardian:
His hands were bleeding and his eyes filled with tears as, four years ago, he slammed a sledgehammer into the tiled plinth that held a 20ft bronze statue of Saddam Hussein. Then Kadhim al-Jubouri spoke of his joy at being the leader of the crowd that toppled the statue in Baghdad’s Firdous Square. Now, he is filled with nothing but regret.
The moment became symbolic across the world as it signalled the fall of the dictator. Wearing a black vest, Mr al-Jubouri, an Iraqi weightlifting champion, pounded through the concrete in an attempt to smash the statue and all it meant to him. Now, on the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq, he says: “I really regret bringing down the statue. The Americans are worse than the dictatorship. Every day is worse than the previous day.”
From hope to despair in Baghdad, BBC News:
After Baghdad fell, I would satellite reports back to London about attacks in which one or two people were killed. It was big news in those days. Last Thursday, a bomb exploded near the end of the street in central Baghdad where the BBC has its office. Eight people were killed and 25 injured, and we had rather good pictures of it.
But I did not ring London to offer a report about it. To get on the news, or the front page of the newspapers nowadays, a lot of people have to die. I would say the current figure is 60 or 70; and it certainly wouldn’t be the lead.
This is not because editors do not care; it is because it happens so often it scarcely seems like news.
Third of Iraqi children now malnourished four years after US invasion, Reuters AlertNet:
Vatican City – Caritas Internationalis and Caritas Iraq say that malnutrition rates have risen in Iraq from 19 percent before the US-led invasion to a national average of 28 percent four years later.
Caritas says that rising hunger has been caused by high levels of insecurity, collapsed healthcare and other infrastructure, increased polarisation between different sects and tribes, and rising poverty.
Over 11 percent of newborn babies are born underweight in Iraq today, compared with a figure of 4 percent in 2003. Before March 2003, Iraq already had significant infant mortality due to malnutrition because of the international sanctions regime.
The Killings in Haditha, CBS News, 60 Minutes:
(CBS) On Nov. 19, 2005, United States Marines killed 24 apparently innocent civilians in an Iraqi town called Haditha. The dead included men, women and children as young as 2 years old. Iraqi witnesses said the Marines were on a rampage, slaughtering people in the street and in their homes. In December, four Marines were charged with murder. […] Wuterich does not believe 24 dead civilians equates to a massacre.
“No, absolutely not… A massacre in my mind, by definition, is a large group of people being executed, being killed for absolutely no reason and that’s absolutely not what happened here,” he says.
The day after the killings, bodies were wrapped to conceal the sight of 24 civilians: 15 men, three women and six children killed by shrapnel and gunshot. […] “As you understood them, what were the rules for using deadly force?” Pelley asks.
Wuterich says the biggest thing was PID — positive identification.
“It means that you need to be able to positively identify your target before you shoot to kill,” he says.
The kind of targets they were permitted to shoot to kill included, “…various things,” Wuterich says. “Obviously, anyone with a weapon, especially pointed at you… Hostile act, hostile intent was the biggest thing that they had to have, so if they had used a hostile act against you, you could use deadly force. If there was hostile intent towards you, you could use deadly force.” […] “Normally, the Iraqis know the drill when you’re over there. They know if something happens, they know exactly what they need to do. Get down, hands up, and completely cooperate. These individuals were doing none of that. They got out of the car [and] as they were going around they started to take off, so I shot at them,” he tells Pelley.
As the men ran from Wuterich, he says he shot them in the back.
“How does these men running away from the scene, as you describe it, square with hostile action or hostile intent? Asks Pelley.
“Because hostile action, if they were the triggermen, would have blown up the IED. Which would also constitute hostile intent. But also at the same time, there were military-aged males that were inside that car. The only vehicle, the only thing that was out, that was Iraqi, was them. They were 100 meters away from that IED. Those are the things that went through my mind before I pulled the trigger. That was positive identification,” Wuterich tells Pelley.
Other witnesses, including Marines, dispute that the men were running. Wuterich is charged with lying that day to a sergeant, saying the Iraqi men fired on the convoy.
When the vehicle was searched, what was found?
“I believe nothing. I don’t remember partaking in the search,” he said. “But, as far as I know, there wasn’t anything found.”
And the men were not armed. […] In two minutes, one Marine and five Iraqis were dead, but the killing had just begun Next, Frank Wuterich would lead his men to kill 19 more Iraqi civilians…
Gen. Petraeus and a High-Profile Suicide in Iraq, Editor & Publisher:
Col. Ted Westhusing, a West Point scholar, put a bullet in his head in Iraq after reporting widespread corruption. His suicide note — complaining about human rights abuses and other crimes — was addressed to his two commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, now leader of the U.S. “surge” effort in Iraq. It urged them to “Reevaluate yourselves….You are not what you think you are and I know it.”
Bush to Ask for Patience in Iraq War, The Guardian, March 19, 2007:
Bush was expected to issue a plea for more patience in the war, which has stretched longer with higher costs than the White House ever anticipated. The president was to make a statement in the Roosevelt Room.
“It can be tempting to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude that our best option is to pack up and go home,” Bush was to say, according to an administration official who saw an advance text of his remarks. “While that may be satisfying in the short run, the consequences for American security would be devastating.” […] Democratic lawmakers say the public put them in charge of Congress to demand more progress in Iraq – and to start getting the U.S. troops out.
The timeline for troop withdrawal under the House bill would speed up if the Iraqi government cannot meet its own benchmarks for providing security, allocating oil revenues and other essential steps. The administration opposes setting such timelines.
The House plan appears to have little chance of getting through the Senate, where Democrats have a slimmer majority. Even if it did, Bush has promised to veto it. But the White House is aggressively trying to stop it anyway, fearful of the message the world will hear if the House approves a binding bill to end the war.
Bush Warns U.S. Security Will Suffer if Troops Withdraw From Iraq, The Washington Post, March 19, 2007
It’s all about “good days and bad days” to Bush.
Identify one “good day” in Iraq since this war began, Bush. I dare you.
Pingback: feminist blogs
Pingback: liberal catnip
Pingback: IST Control Center
Pingback: a-blog馬鹿
Here’s a couple. The day that Saddam died for his crimes. The day that they got to elect their own government.
If you believe that the day Saddam Hussein was executed was a good day for the US, you’re sadly mistaken. Hussein was tried by a travesty of a court in a chaotic judicial system that doesn’t really deserve the title “judicial system.” Now the anti-US forces can point to that farce of a trial and claim that Hussein was railroaded with a good amount of credibility. The video of the execution does nothing to help our cause, either. The rush to execute the evil bastard was a mistake. He should either have been tried in an international court or tried in Iraq after there was a stable government with a well structured judicial system in existence.
If you wanted to say that the day that Saddam Hussein was apprehended was a good day, I’d be a lot more inclined to agree with you.
Oh yes, the day they got to elect their own government was a huge success. Why, there’s hardly been a problem since then.
What about the day we found those mobile biological weapons labs? Was that a good day, too?
There would be another great day if we would just hold a big BBQ for all Iraqis & have pony rides for the children.
The day Zarqawi was killed. The day British troops pulled out, which showed us we’re one step closer to handing over security issues to the Iraqis.
Y’all let me know when, once we leave, the next “good day” in Iraq … a day when their people have any chance to live free and pursue happiness … will happen.
We pull out, we sign the death warrants for hundreds of thousands … and enslave millions.
That misery and death will pale in comparison to what will come next …
… for, if you and the denizens of Woodstock Nation (like ANSWER et. al., who use this war as a propaganda tool to achieve their real objective) get your way, put America “in her place”, and leave the battle to indulge in bread and circuses, the jihadis will get a hold on a vulnerable nation, sooner or later …
… leverage the resources of that nation to take others … and leverage them all to develop forces that will put a big hurt on our civilization (and if you think they will not do so, name me ONE totalitarian regime in history with the capability and desire to expand, that foreswore its tyranny and ceased expansion ON ITS OWN, in the absence of confrontation by a credible opposing force)…
… act to apply that big hurt …
… then the denizens of Woodstock Nation will turn on a dime, and — their concern for innocent life evaporated — demand that our government stop those forces by any means necessary, up to and including scorched earth via neutron fluence …
… and millions in the MidEast will die, while our civilization is set back a century or more through the disruption of the global interconnnections that make it prosper today.
We have seen this process take place before … most recently, seventy years or so ago, right up to that neutron fluence … and I don’t want to see it repeated.
I want to see both the innocent lives, and those interconnections, preserved instead of lost.
The ONLY way to assure that, is through the credible confrontation of today’s totalitarians, no matter how “insignificant” they look today … and no matter how they are or aren’t related to those who perpetrated 911, as Al Quada is not the ONLY enemy of that type we are facing.
This approach is historically sound … as virtually ALL the progress made since WWII in terms of human liberation, nuclear-arms reduction, and the easing of international tensions has been by the CREDIBLE confrontations executed by the “cowboy diplomats” the Best and Brightest of Woodstock Nation look down their noses at.
You oppose this approach … you are not anti-war.
You are, unwittingly or intentionally, working for the other side.
Grow up, if you give a damn about global civilization.
We over at Blackfive do not appreciate the lies of some commie like yourself that wants the U.S to loose and all our boys brought home in a body bag. You think you can mess with those of us that have served our country? The least you will get from the boys at Blackfive is a video smack down by our own resident ex-special forces, Uncle Jimbo! Uncle Jimbo as killed more people than girls you have kissed during you dorm spin the bottle games at vassar college. Come over and vist the boys at Blackfive and let yourself be known. We love guests. If you want trouble you got it by talking smack about our young men in the services. We are a tight knit bunch and we could care a less if there was one less ass clown moon bat ruining our beautiful country. You and your friends will pay. They have put the word out at Blackfive and we will find you.
john, that’s not the kind of comment that passes for civil discourse here. If you want to debate the issues, fine, but ad hominem stuff isn’t valued here and supports the opposition just as much as you would take support from someone who opposes your viewpoint who acted that way.
Jake:
If you believe that the day Saddam Hussein was executed was a good day for the US, you’re sadly mistaken.
I’m pretty confident that Amp’s point was regarding good days for Iraq and the Iraqis, not the U.S.
Hussein was tried by a travesty of a court in a chaotic judicial system that doesn’t really deserve the title “judicial system.” Now the anti-US forces can point to that farce of a trial and claim that Hussein was railroaded with a good amount of credibility.
The trial had some difficulties but I don’t think it’s viewed as a farce. And God knows the anti-Iraqi forces did their best to derail it, what with killing the lawyers and all.
The video of the execution does nothing to help our cause, either. The rush to execute the evil bastard was a mistake.
The execution wasn’t up to proper standards by any measure. But the outrage over that was limited in both breadth and duration. The bottom line is that the vast majority figured he got what he deserved.
He should either have been tried in an international court
With all due respect, screw that. He was an Iraqi tried by Iraqis for crimes against Iraqis. I wouldn’t trust an “international court” with a burnt-out match, never mind an actual question of justice or law.
or tried in Iraq after there was a stable government with a well structured judicial system in existence.
That’s a better argument, worthy of consideration. But the present government had to balance the issues of flaws in the legal system against the threat that Saddam represented. As long as he was alive he remained a rallying point for the ex-Baathists and the idea that he might regain power in some fashion still hung over people. The perfect solution here didn’t exist.
Oh yes, the day they got to elect their own government was a huge success. Why, there’s hardly been a problem since then.
If you measure governments by the problems that exist during their tenure then few measure up, including ours. The idea was never that problems would magically dissapear once the Iraqis got to elect their own government; the idea was that the solution to those problems would become something that all Iraqis would have a say in; that they would become citizens rather than subjects. All of our problems didn’t dissapear when we elected our own Federal government; it took years before we ended up with our present Constitution, and President Washington had to dispatch Federal troops to put down armed rebellion. Then there’s the Civil War.
If you believe that the day Saddam Hussein was executed was a good day for the US, you’re sadly mistaken.
I’m pretty confident that Amp’s point was regarding good days for Iraq and the Iraqis, not the U.S.
I stand by that for Iraqis as well. Hussein’s death hasn’t improved life for the citizens of Iraq. Nor has their (greatly promoted & noticeably pressured by the US) election day improved their lives, as far as I can tell from here.
I’m much more in agreement with Dennis’ mention of the day Zarqawi was killed. There is no question in my mind that that represented an improvement for Iraq. As to British troops pulling out… I don’t think it means what you think it means, Dennis.
Rich Casebolt:
The ONLY way to assure that, is through the credible confrontation of today’s totalitarians, no matter how “insignificant” they look today …
All right Rich, you let me know when you start pushing for the removal of our good friend Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan by military force. Please also show me evidence that you have promoted the invasion of China and please lay out the reasons that you think an invasion of China wouldn’t be an unmitigated disaster.
We pull out, we sign the death warrants for hundreds of thousands…
Because that certainly hasn’t happened between March of 2003 and now.
I’m also fond of your promotion of the domino theory wrt Jihadis. I’m sorry to have to be the one to tell you that the domino theory hasn’t been taken seriously for decades.
If you can also show me that you have any knowledge at all of both history and our current military capabilities, chances are I’ll take you a bit more seriously than I do right now.
I stand by that for Iraqis as well. Hussein’s death hasn’t improved life for the citizens of Iraq.
Jake, does the saying “I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees” have any resonance for you?
Jake, does the saying “I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees” have any resonance for you?
Does the fact that people are afraid to leave their homes and when they do are subject to becoming murder or kidnap victims or merely collateral damage from bombings and , thus, are now dying on their knees (to stay in your particular idiom) have any resonance for you? Also, that’s an easy thing for you, sitting in comfort in a place that is secure, to say. Time and time again, people have shown a preference for security over chaos, even at the cost of some (or a lot of) freedom. Witness the Patriot Act in the US.
Hussein’s death doesn’t put Iraqis, “on their feet,” in any way. People are no more free than they were before his execution. Granted, their repression is from smaller, possibly less well organized, groups than under Hussein’s regime. Nonetheless, your average Iraqi citizen – from all reports – has no more influence than they had before the invasion. Religious clerics and many tribal leaders, on the other hand, do have more influence.
Religious clerics and many tribal leaders, on the other hand, do have more influence.
So some power has been pushed down from the highest level of the hierarchy. The bottom level remains powerless. The net result is an increase in the democratization of power.
As a general principle, is pushing power down a hierarchy a bad thing, or a good thing?
Pingback: Pacific Views: "Every day is worse than the previous day.
RONF,
You were the one over at Blackfive telling us patriots to come over here and tell them whats up. I told the truth and now you say I am out of line. What kind of two faced trouble maker are you? Wait until Uncle Jimbo finds out what you have been up to. You my friend are going to get one old fashioned video smackdown!
I’m also fond of your promotion of the domino theory wrt Jihadis. I’m sorry to have to be the one to tell you that the domino theory hasn’t been taken seriously for decades … If you can also show me that you have any knowledge at all of both history and our current military capabilities, chances are I’ll take you a bit more seriously than I do right now.
Jake, name me even ONE totalitarian regime in all of history, with the aspiration and capability to expand their rule beyond their borders, that stopped ON THEIR OWN, forwore tyranny, pulled back to their own borders, and established rights-respecting governance for their people without the “prodding” of the CREDIBLE threat of force being used against it.
Show me another way to stop them, instead of just denigrating a proven way to do so.
As for dominoes, the most famous application of that theory — the Vietnam conflict — at least drained the totalitarians to the point that they could no longer expand into places like Thailand, even after we left the theater. Therefore, the ability of confrontation to stop the dominoes from falling was at least partially validated.
All right Rich, you let me know when you start pushing for the removal of our good friend Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan by military force. Please also show me evidence that you have promoted the invasion of China and please lay out the reasons that you think an invasion of China wouldn’t be an unmitigated disaster.
When Nazarbayev tries to expand beyond his borders and/or sponsor terror, he deserves more of our attention. Until then, we have more urgent concerns to deal with … but he deserves to be watched even now, for totalitarian behavior within one’s own borders is, in the light of history, a rather reliable indicator of one’s proclivity to cause trouble outside them.
And, you apparaently lack the wisdom to understand that confrontation does not necessarily lead to invasion or war … in fact it can PREVENT all-out, indiscriminate war, but only if your adversary knows that you are READY to go to war, if necessary, to defend life and liberty.
Now, let me deal with some examples from history … and with China.
1> We were at a state of undeclared war with Eastern Europe for most of my lifetime … the Cold War. Two of my uncles lived on the bullseye in that war … their farms smack-dab in the middle of a Minuteman Missile Wing in western Missouri, complete with crews on 24-hour alert from their installation until the end of that war. If those missiles had ever been launched, my uncles would have had less than thirty minutes to bend over and kiss you-know-what goodbye.
How did that end? By President Reagan … over the strident, vitrolic objections of people who think like you, who called him a “cowboy” and said he would start a war … confronting the Soviet Union with the reality that they would find American technological and economic might leveraging our military might, and would be deployed to thwart any further expansionism on their part.
BTW, thanks to Mr. Reagan’s confrontation … and NO THANKS to those who opposed him, favoring instead the universal impotence of unilateral nuclear disarmament and/or perpetual MAD … those missiles are no longer present around my uncles’ farms. Reagan’s willingness to CONFRONT the Soviets did more to reduce nuclear-arms stockpiles than all the detente and Kumbiyah ever generated!
2> As of 10 Sept 2001 the state sponsors of radical-Islam-derived terror were Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan.
Thanks to the confrontation of terrorist regimes by our current President, three of these states are no longer sponsoring terrorism today … but they could return to such sponsorship, if we do not stay and defend them until strong, sustainable rights-respecting governance is established within the two nations we had to invade to put an end to their previous sponsorship.
The other two states in the list above, from what I see, are playing the international community … and people like you … for fools. I do not see them making the substantial changes need to end their sponsorship of terrorism, until they also are confronted with the CREDIBLE threat of force.
Understand that there is a difference between authoritarian states like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, where the rules are strict, but public … and totalitarian states like Iran and Saddam’s Iraq, where the threat of disappearing on the word of a snitch or from looking the wrong way at a powerful person was widespread. There is enough openness and contact with the rest of the world in the former, to rub off their harsh edges over time. We are already seeing that process begin in Kuwait and the Gulf States.
3> We already have been confronting Kim Jong (mentally) Il … otherwise, Jimmy Carter would have wrangled himself another Nobel Peace prize, printed on paper that glows-in-the-dark. Lil’ Kim has been coming around to the six-way of thinking, lately … partly because China holds his chain, partly because China, America, and the other parties in this six-way dance have confronted Kim.
As for China — we need to be ready to confront them, at least at a Cold War level … but the difference between them today, and the Soviets during the Cold War, is that China is already having its harsh edges rubbed off by its addiction to world trade. The Chinese, while Machivellian, are not meglomaniacal or fanatical … they have the capability to realize that it is in their best interest to adopt more and more elements of rights-respecting governance over time, which will reduce the threat they pose to America.
Like the Soviets, China is a rational adversary … as opposed to the terrorists of radical Islam, who we have seen again and again exhibit a willingness to kill millions of their own people — and even their children — to get at us.
That is not a sustainable course of action for them … but if we leave the battle now, they will be able to resume the sustainable course of action they were on in September 2001 … in relative peace to plan and plot …
… and we will wind up with the unmitigated disaster I described above.
Just like another unmitigated disaster, seventy years ago.
Learn from history, Jake … instead of regurgitating Leftist talking points and snapshot interpretation of the facts-on-the-ground.
While the Iraqis’ straits are quite dire right now — they at the very least, thanks to America, now have an opportunity to secure the blessings of liberty, and immunize themselves from being hijacked again for totalitarian adventurism — and the thugs no longer have Iraq as a safe haven from which to plan and plot in relative peace, but instead must constantly watch their own backs.
As long as Saddam & Sons held power, they had NO chance to secure those blessings and/or immunization … both they, and America, and global civilization, would have remained at risk in perpetuity.
A few dozen guys pulled off 911 with a budget of under $1M.
Common sense asks the question: why should our civilization trust anyone of like mind when it comes to respecting life and liberty — even if they are NOT affiliated with Al Quada, or radical Islam for that matter — with control of the resources and infrastructure of a relatively-advanced nation?
It’s a process, Jake. War is bad, and bad things happen during war. At the end, people will be more secure, and will have more power. As you have pointed out, power is already becoming more decentralized. It seems to me that you think it’s at an endpoint. I don’t. I expect that process to continue.
Also, the examples of people getting kidnapped and killed, etc., is not something that’s happening all over Iraq, but at certain points, and those points are being addressed via the decentralization of Coalition forces and the increasingly effective training and deployment of Iraqi forces. There are a great many areas in Iraq where people don’t have these problems AND they don’t have to worry about Saddam’s secret police anymore, either, but this is not generally publicized by the MSM. To paraphrase, “if it doesn’t bleed, it doesn’t lead”.
Halfway through the Civil War, things didn’t look good for the Union, and there were a lot of people who wanted to sue for peace and accept partition of the U.S.
RonF,
First, as you know, I disagree with the decision to invade in the first place. I thought that the excuses were bullshit and that we were doomed to failure in the long run if we didn’t install our own strongman. But, more than that, I never for a moment thought we would prosecute the invasion and occupation so ineptly. The problem is that we have had no plan, that we went into it with no knowledge of the country or the culture. After 4 years of flailing around and achieving nothing (except the end of Saddam Hussein and making Iran stronger and more popular), there doesn’t seem to be a realistic plan to correct those errors (if that is even possible) and provide stability.
We haven’t been able to rebuild the infrastructure. In fact, the infrastructure is in worse shape than before the invasion. We haven’t been able to provide security. We haven’t been able to aid in the formation of a stable government. We haven’t been able to stabilize the economy. We haven’t even managed to get the oil industry back on it’s knees, never mind it’s feet.
So when you say, “At the end, people will be more secure, and will have more power,” I don’t see any evidence for that. It seems like a fairy tale that you’re telling yourself so that you can feel good about the invasion. Show me anything about Iraq (the country, the culture, the history) that gives any evidence that the people will be more secure and have more power “in the end” (will the end be within our lifetimes? within our children’s lifetimes?). If anything, Lebanon and Afghanistan, in neither of which are the people better off now than Iraqis were pre-invasion, provide more evidence of what Iraq will look like in 20 years than anything that you have said.
Actually, Jake, Iraqi oil production is at prewar levels. Not that this fact pebble will deter you from the rush down the slope of “defeat and doom!”, but someone else might read it and wonder what other facts you’ve got wrong. (Hint: lots.)
As to British troops pulling out… I don’t think it means what you think it means, Dennis.
Inconceivable!
Also, Jake, not everyone is as pessimistic about the Iraqi economy as you are. From Newsweek’s year end issue:
Blood and Money In what might be called the mother of all surprises, Iraq’s economy is growing strong, even booming in places.
Actually, Jake, Iraqi oil production is at prewar levels.
http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__business&articleid=260957
indicates otherwise, as do other sources. The US government sites, OTOH, indicate that current production is above 2003 levels.
There seems to be some disagreement over what the prewar production levels were. Claims range from 2.1 million to 2.6 million barrels per day – quite a range.
All of which is besides the point. I never mentioned oil production, I said “oil industry.” Production is one part of the oil industry. I would like to highlight the following:
Despite its attractive potential for development — only 17 of the 80 fields discovered in Iraq have been developed — a number of reasons have been behind Iraq’s slowness to turn around its post-war oil industry.
Political instability, violence, and the sabotage of oil industry pipelines and infrastructure have been main factors. The 2003 war itself did little damage to the infrastructure, but looting and sabotage in the aftermath accounted for 80% of the destruction.
You may notice that the problems with the industry are outside of the area of production. If you’re going to insist that I’m wrong, you should at least address the subject on which I have written, not the subject on which you wish I had written.
Also, if you would like to address the subject of how much power Iraqi’s have now, there is always this:
“Iraqi public opinion is strongly opposed to handing control over oil development to foreign companies,” said a November report entitled “Crude Designs: the rip-off of Iraq’s oil wealth” from the independent British-based social activist organisation Platform.
“But,” the reports continues, “with the active involvement of the US and British governments, a group of powerful Iraqi politicians and technocrats is pushing for a system of long-term contracts with foreign oil companies which will be beyond the reach of Iraqi courts, public scrutiny, or democratic control”.
Look, that’s the American Dream. Strangely, it doesn’t seem like the Iraqi dream.
Please, give me sites that show that Iraq’s infrastructure is better than it was pre-invasion, that security is as good, that the economy is doing well and that there is a viable, stable government in Iraq now. If I’m wrong, and you can show it, I will happily admit to my mistakes.
RonF,
To quote from your link:
Says Wael Ziada, an analyst in Cairo who tracks Iraqna: “There will always be pockets of money and wealth, no matter how bad the situation gets.”…
… But, given all the attention paid to deteriorating security, the startling fact is that Iraq is growing at all.
How? Iraq is a crippled nation growing on the financial equivalent of steroids, with money pouring in from abroad. National oil revenues and foreign grants look set to total $41 billion this year, according to the IMF. With security improving in one key spot—the southern oilfields—that figure could go up…
… Yes, Iraq’s problems are daunting, to say the least. Unemployment runs between 30 and 50 percent. Many former state industries have all but ceased to function. As for all that money flowing in, much of it has gone to things that do little to advance the country’s future.
So is that article saying that Iraq’s economy is growing (4% or 17% depending on who you believe) because of the money from sales of oil rights? Also, the deal with the IMF does not bode well for the future of Iraq’s economy.
That article is putting a happy face on what seems, from the facts presented within it, to be a pretty dire situation. “Sure,” says Newsweek, “economic & political conditions are horrible, but if you sell your assets to outside investors, a lot of money will be made by a few.” They keep citing horrible conditions (lack of a banking system, political instability, ethnic strife, kidnappings and bombings, etc…), but then showing, that despite all this we can name two companies (Cell phone service & money transfers) that are making a lot of money. They offer no specifics or evidence to support the “trickle down” effect.
What am I missing in that article?
One last link on the state of Iraq’s oil industry:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6461581.stm
A few highlights:
In Baghdad soon after the war, US officials confidently predicted that with a bit of effort production would reach 3.5 million barrels a day within 18 months, and five or six million barrels a day within few years….
Many of the worst problems are in refining and distribution: the part of the industry that supplies finished products like petrol, diesel and heating fuel for use internally in Iraq.
There is a chronic shortage of refining capacity. …
Under Saddam, the oil ministry generally had a high reputation.
It was seen as staffed by competent technocrats who got on with the job.
That is not the case any longer.
As with other ministries, experienced staff have often been replaced by less qualified political appointees.
To Rich Casebolt, “John”, and the rest: Good. When do you leave for the front?
Oh my god, that picture of the man with the black hat on, stroking his little boy’s head behind the barbed wire, is beyond horrible. Poor little boy. I hope the child didn’t end up dying of dehydration, or any of the other hazards that face children in Iraq now. I hope his family was reunited, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Pingback: Propaganda: Palestinian Propaganda « Sake White