UN bombing

[Daniel Morris]

When car bombers selectively target the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, does it bolster or tarnish the theory that the Iraqi "resistance" is a liberation movement?

[XPav]

I thought that the problem with the UN Human Rights commission was that it had these countries like Syria, Libya, and all these other evil guys on it.

So perhaps the bombing of it was intended as a blow against those people?

...

No, I don't believe that, I'm just amused.

[Jason McCullough]

It's probable there's Al-Queda, Saddam's people, and people angry at the occupation all running around independently.

[Andrew Mayer]

When car bombers selectively target the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, does it bolster or tarnish the theory that the Iraqi "resistance" is a liberation movement?

It bolsters the theory that Iraq is in disarray, and turning into a haven for all different types of disaffected arab groups.

It also bolsters the theory that the US is not in control.

[Daniel Morris]

It also bolsters the theory that the US is not in control.

By that measure, 9/11 bolsters the theory that the US is not in control of the United States.

Perhaps our forces should pull out of Iraq, New York, and Washington.

[XPav]

It also bolsters the theory that the US is not in control.

By that measure, 9/11 bolsters the theory that the US is not in control of the United States.

Perhaps our forces should pull out of Iraq, New York, and Washington.

If there were constant low level attacks on various agencies all over the country, with major outages of electricity and water, then yes, the US government wouldn't have control over the United States.

Also Daniel -- you seem to think that those of us that are critical of the situation in Iraq would like us to "pull out." That's an utter farce. What we want is the situation to get better -- and what many of us believe is that the current administration isn't going about this the right way.

We're there now -- and I wish it wasn't the case, but we're there to stay, so lets do it properly. We should start by getting more people on the ground -- and that means going to the UN and transferring control over Iraq a multinational UN peackeeping force (with a major US component of course).

[bmulligan]

Have you been looking over John McCain's notes? How many more troops are going to do the job? 50,000? 100,000? 200,000? There is no possible way to be in 'control' of the entire area and never let anything bad happen.

Throwing more troops at the problem is like throwing more money into the education budget, we still have sub-par education and the answer is even more money. I say we start by abandoning the gun confiscation program and let Iraqis have some dignity in protecting their own families and property. Just like here at home, the criminals are always going to get guns, whether they are legal or not. Disarming ordinary citizens leaves them as easy targets for intimidation by radical elements.

Why should we let a UN peacekeeping force 'help' us anyway? Look how long it takes them to make decisions, and then they never stand by them anyway. I think the bombing of the UN building shows that a UN led force wouldn't lend any more legitamacy to the occupation.

[Jason McCullough]

That's fucking absurd. Hey, why not withdraw all the troops but 1? Troop count doesn't matter!

[bmulligan]

You're fucking absurd. Just because I don't believe we need more doesn't mean we should withdraw all of them. Don't be an ass.

[quatoria]

See, Jason? Only Mulligan knows the magic number!

[Jason McCullough]

Maybe you should have said "the amount we have is perfectly fine for reason X", then, mulligan. Your post only contains lots of implications that the pacification of Iraq is independent of the number of troops there.

[Brad Grenz]

It bolsters the theory that Iraq is in disarray, and turning into a haven for all different types of disaffected arab groups.

It also bolsters the theory that the US is not in control.

Actually, I think these attacks were engineered to propegate that exact sentiment. There specifically designed to enflame the international community and neighboring countries against the occupation for failing to secure the country. I heard on NPR that the UN had made deliberate decision not to close the street in front of the UN facility and creating the kind of stand off perimeter US positions maintain (we learned that lesson in OK City). They wanted not to appear distant and stand-off-ish. The bombers, unable to effectively attack US positions with this kind of truck bomb, chose these soft targets, not because they have any specific grudge against Jordan and the UN, but simply to make the US look bad for failing to protect them. That's my theory anyway.

[Andrew Mayer]

The sad fact is that the US was primarily responsible for the protection of the UN mission, by and large because we didn't want UN troops involved there.

I think Friedman's column (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/20/opinion/20FRIE.html) in today's times makes some good points.

There are only two things we need: more Americans out back and more Iraqis out front.

If the majority of citizens want peace, then we need to be making them a part of the process.


Actually, I think these attacks were engineered to propegate that exact sentiment. There specifically designed to enflame the international community and neighboring countries against the occupation for failing to secure the country.

Fair enough. In this case I think that the sentiment may well be valid, although the neighbors are plenty pissed already.

What's fast wearing away fast is the "Faith Based Strategy" that's being practiced by the administration. The endless nonsense being shoveled at us about facing remnants of Saddam's forces is no longer operational. We have no clear idea what's happening in the streets, but it's not about Uday and Qusay, or the "Deck of Cards".

[bmulligan]

That's exactly why we need to be more ferverent in arming the Iraqi population. Glad to know someone else agrees with me in principle, instead of trolling an nitpicking other peoples posts.

[quatoria]

This may be a first-and-last time deal, but I also agree. We need to be transiting from armed occupation to having the Iraqis policing and defending themselves as quickly as possible.

[JeffL]

The sad fact is that the US was primarily responsible for the protection of the UN mission, by and large because we didn't want UN troops involved there.

We offered the UN our services for security and they specifically requested we NOT provide them security. They hired their own. From what I read and saw on CNN this morning, the UN feared that if we were the ones providing security it might make them more of a target. Understandable, but obviously a bad decision. They never thought that they would be a target, since they were filled with Iraqis, and they were working to provide food, water, medicine, clear land mines, etc.

I saw a speaker here in town last night who is an Iraqi who is over here working with some companies so that he (and his companions) can be better trained to help rebuild the country's energy infrastructure. There were a few things he said that struck me:

1. He said that even before our attack half of the country, on average, would be without electricity at any given time. Sadaam typically ordered where the power would go each day, and the results were predictible.

2. He was very fearful that America would lose sight of the good that they did in ousting Sadaam's regime, and he said he was "baffled at what he saw on American TV." He said that the average Iraqi was VERY grateful for Sadaam being thrown out, and that the attacks on our forces were the results of a couple of factors. More on that in a moment. But he said he wished that more would be shown over here on what life in Iraq was all about for all the years Sadaam was in power. He personally had his wife raped by the security forces of one of Sadaam's sons while they were visiting Bagdhad - he said they simply saw her as they were walking the streets, told him they needed to borrow her, when he resisted they shot him in the stomach and left him for dead and then took her into a building and gang raped her for about 5 hours. He said that he was lucky that someone was brave enough to take him to a hospital (most were afraid to.) He found his wife in the same hospital the next day - he told what happened to a nurse and she realized the woman who had been brought in must be his wife. He said this was a fairly normal occurrence and "just the way life was" in Sadaam's Iraq. His cousin's two 14 and 11 year old daughters were gang raped and killed by one of Sadaam's sons' thugs because his cousin complained in a public forum, with foreign reporters present, about how food distribution was being handled (this was in 2001.)

3. His take on the bombings, attacks, etc. - he said that the nations around Iraq have incredible fear of Iraq developing a free and democratic and prosperous society. He said that it was common knowledge in the streets of Iraq that many if not most of the attacks were being orchestrated and carried out by Iranian and other nations' terrorists (his words) who see a free and prosperous and democratic Iraq as their worst nightmare - they fear that if their own people see that, they will want it themselves. He said it would also be a visible contradiction of what they tell their people, that all America can bring is evil and bad - if they see America throw out Sadaam and a resulting "Good" society based on democracy their stand will be highly undermined. I asked him if perhaps the highly Muslim nature of some of these nations, such as Iran, might not be a counter force to a drive to a democracy (since Islam specifically ties government and religion together) and he laughed and said "I'm a devout Muslim, as are almost all of my friends, and we pray for a free Iraq 3 times a day."

FWIW

[Anders Hallin]

1. He said that even before our attack half of the country, on average, would be without electricity at any given time. Sadaam typically ordered where the power would go each day, and the results were predictible.
That's an interesting point, however, when things are bad now, "at least it's better than before" is rarely a good argument. This doesn't make anyone long for a change to the past, of course, it just makes them unhappy with how it is now.

[JeffL]

1. He said that even before our attack half of the country, on average, would be without electricity at any given time. Sadaam typically ordered where the power would go each day, and the results were predictible.
That's an interesting point, however, when things are bad now, "at least it's better than before" is rarely a good argument. This doesn't make anyone long for a change to the past, of course, it just makes them unhappy with how it is now.

Well, I tried to tell him that there were a bunch of us who post on a computer web site that knew the situation better than him, but he just wouldn't listen. ;)

Seriously, someone asked him about that - he said sure, there were problems, and he said "I'll bet you can take cameras and easily find unhappy people in the U.S. or France and put them on T.V." but he said that the average Iraqi, even those undergoing some transitional hardship (his family lives in an area that has had a lot of problems), understand and are glad for what has happened. He said everyone likes to bitch and moan (he used a different phrase) but said he didn't know anyone amongst his friends who wishes we'd never come in.

[bago]

Just a slight footnote, the UN also wanted to project a low-security image, and as such refused US guards for their building.

[Lizard_King]

We offered the UN our services for security and they specifically requested we NOT provide them security. They hired their own. From what I read and saw on CNN this morning, the UN feared that if we were the ones providing security it might make them more of a target. Understandable, but obviously a bad decision. They never thought that they would be a target, since they were filled with Iraqis, and they were working to provide food, water, medicine, clear land mines, etc.

Precisely. And their approach would have made sense had it been some grassroots Iraqi revolt that was killing US soldiers. Unfortunately, it is much more complicated than that...I can't wait until someone makes the logical connection bmulligan and so many others have been advocating, and lets the Iraqis defend themselves.



1. He said that even before our attack half of the country, on average, would be without electricity at any given time. Sadaam typically ordered where the power would go each day, and the results were predictible.
That's really interesting. Unsurprising and logical, but one wonders why such an important bit of context is NEVER mentioned in reports and analyses of the Iraqi situation.

As to the rest of your post...that's really interesting stuff. You'd think people like that would get some face time, given the amount of attention given to the opposing viewpoint(s) from experts real and imagined.


Just a slight footnote, the UN also wanted to project a low-security image, and as such refused US guards for their building.
At least the UN is consistent, both in their approach and their results.

[Daniel Morris]

3. His take on the bombings, attacks, etc. - he said that the nations around Iraq have incredible fear of Iraq developing a free and democratic and prosperous society. He said that it was common knowledge in the streets of Iraq that many if not most of the attacks were being orchestrated and carried out by Iranian and other nations' terrorists (his words) who see a free and prosperous and democratic Iraq as their worst nightmare - they fear that if their own people see that, they will want it themselves. He said it would also be a visible contradiction of what they tell their people, that all America can bring is evil and bad - if they see America throw out Sadaam and a resulting "Good" society based on democracy their stand will be highly undermined. I asked him if perhaps the highly Muslim nature of some of these nations, such as Iran, might not be a counter force to a drive to a democracy (since Islam specifically ties government and religion together) and he laughed and said "I'm a devout Muslim, as are almost all of my friends, and we pray for a free Iraq 3 times a day."



An excellent analysis, several leagues beyond QT3 caliber.

[JeffL]

As to the rest of your post...that's really interesting stuff. You'd think people like that would get some face time, given the amount of attention given to the opposing viewpoint(s) from experts real and imagined.


Well, he was on the local news, and said his group was filmed by CNN, but he said they never aired the piece. They were interviewed on a Canadian station but he couldn't remember the name of the station.




An excellent analysis, several leagues beyond QT3 caliber.

Ah, but let's not let it ruin our fun! ;)

[Daniel Morris]

From today's newspaper roundup in Slate:


The Post and Journal both ponder the possibility that the bombing and other attacks on civilian targets could backfire and actually increase support for the U.S. and its fight against the guerrillas.

What's to ponder? The only alternative hypothesis is that the majority of Iraqis will approve of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights being blown up along with a dozen other civilian UN workers.

[Jason McCullough]

Just because it's irrational doesn't mean Iraqis won't do it.....

[bmulligan]

I suppose Iraqis want to bomb their own water piplines too?

[Jason McCullough]

They aren't the same, and you know it.

[bmulligan]

No, I don't think I do know. Why would the Iraqi people blow up their own source of water? Why would they start fire to their own oil? Why would they bomb a prison killing only Iraqis? I'll give more credit to Iraqis than you and say they are too rational to do these things.

[Rywill]

All of that holds true only if the Iraqis believe that the US would be giving them water and power and UN Human Rights commissioners if not for the acts of terrorism. I've read several reports saying that's not the case--that many Iraqis believe the US could restore water and power if they wanted to and are simply choosing not to as a way to punish the Iraqis / motivate them to turn over Saddam / extend the US's stay in Iraq / cement their power / God knows what else.

Weird? Yeah. You know what else? I read an article a week or so ago about how there's a widespread belief on the Iraqi streets that US soldiers have X-Ray sunglasses that they use to ogle Iraqi women through their clothes and whatnot. The soldiers are completely unable to dispel this rumor. One soldier reported that after he gave his sunglasses to a local Iraqi boy to show that all they do is reduce the amount of sunlight coming through, the boy got all pissed off because the soldier wouldn't "turn them on." (IIRC, according to the article it's adults, not just kids, who believe in the X-Ray specs.) Similarly, several Afghanis have blamed the US for dropping vicious man-eating bobcats all over Afghanistan as a way to keep the population indoors at night. They apparently believe the US drops these cats out of secret airplanes that fly around a few feet off the ground, dropping cats in their wake.

I don't mean this as a "ha ha, look how dumb these provincial foreigners are" sort of thing. I'm saying that lots of people in these countries are kept forcibly uneducated or are uneducated because they're so poor; at the same time, they ascribe almost mythological powers to the Americans. It's entirely possible that some, maybe most, of them will think that the Americans are the ones at fault for anything that isn't going right. Bomb goes off? Probably because the US wanted, or at least allowed, it to.

[Jason McCullough]

No, I don't think I do know. Why would the Iraqi people blow up their own source of water? Why would they start fire to their own oil? Why would they bomb a prison killing only Iraqis? I'll give more credit to Iraqis than you and say they are too rational to do these things.

Of course they're too rational to do *those* to themselves. But shooting American soldiers isn't the same as those, is it?

[Brad Grenz]

Good thing he wasn't talking about shooting at American soldiers. Jason, your a master of the slight of hand, pretend you were talking about something else to avoid conceding a point, but I think we've all seen it far too many times.


All of that holds true only if the Iraqis believe that the US would be giving them water and power and UN Human Rights commissioners if not for the acts of terrorism. I've read several reports saying that's not the case--that many Iraqis believe the US could restore water and power if they wanted to and are simply choosing not to as a way to punish the Iraqis / motivate them to turn over Saddam / extend the US's stay in Iraq / cement their power / God knows what else.

That's the thing about reports. Squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that. What makes for better copy, someone who understands and accepts the situation, or someone who's bitching and making a stink? I for one am sick and tired of reading newspaper storys with those throw away quotes at the end from disgruntled, privelidged Sunnis saying "We are glad Saddam is gone, but at least under him we had security". Jesus H. Christ! Yeah, everything was very sucure so long as you weren't the wrong denomination or ethnicity or spoke out against the regime or had a hot wife which you let the Secret Police see, optherwise you could be really fucked. Police states are so secure with their torture and executions and ethnic cleansing and gang rapings, secure for the Ba'ath party and its leaders anyway, otherwise all bets are off.

[Jason McCullough]

Brad, the marsh arabs were rioting in the southern areas last week, which are British controlled. This isn't something the media is making up.

[Brad Grenz]

They wanted gas, right? But they didn't start firing rockets at the fuel trucks when they pulled up because they understood that to be counterproductive. External insugents, on the other hand, would have no compunction about fucking the Iraqis out of gas, water, electricity and food. I think that's pretty much the argument being presented by bmulligan, I know he's a tool, but you can't disagree with him as a matter of public policy because he just might be right about something now and then.

Hey, but I think it's impressive the Marsh Arabs felt safe enough to riot, that's the kind of thing that would have gotten their town gassed under the previous regime.

Didn't the Daily Show mention last night that some Iraqi Engineering student was convinced the American troops had air conditioned underwear? I think our biggest obstical is convincing people on the other side of the world we aren't ominpotent tech-fairies.

[Jason McCullough]

Here (http://www.abc.net.au/ra/newstories/RANewsStories_920940.htm)


Iraqis fed up with the slow pace of reconstruction have rioted in the British-controlled city of Basra.

The British military says seven soldiers and four Iraqi civilians were wounded.

The residents of Basra, tired of power outages and fuel shortages, hurled rocks and burned tires in the city's main streets.

"They felt safe enough to riot" is absurd, Brad. The occupation just isn't going well. Bush needs to get serious.

[Machfive]

Here (http://www.abc.net.au/ra/newstories/RANewsStories_920940.htm)

"They felt safe enough to riot" is absurd, Brad. The occupation just isn't going well. Bush needs to get serious.

Please, now don't take this the wrong way, but:

Present what you would consider to be a viable way to improve the situation in Iraq...

Or shut the fuck up.

It's nothing personal. Please don't bitch me out. But I'm sick of EVERYONE criticizing something without even alluding to whether or not they could do it better, and how.

I have no idea, frankly, where the "problem" lies with Iraq. As far as I can tell, it was a country that just had a regime overthrown, and it's been all of....4 months? And people expect things to all of a sudden be gumdrops and roses?

I'm sorry, but take a look at how long it took Europe or Japan to recover from WWII.

That isn't even CONSIDERING the fact that it's surrounded by countries that have a lot to lose if it achieves a fabulous democracy, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to consider the fact that hey, maybe they've got a few fingers in the insurgency. If Japan was surrounded by countries whose regimes' existences were hanging in the balance of its success or failure with democracy, you can bet a Tagamochi that things would have gone very differently than they had.

Just because we've gotten accelerated the pace at which a war occurs doesn't mean the pace at which rebuilding occurs has increased accordingly. If anything, it's gonna YEARS, 3, 4, hell, maybe a decade, before things have improved a great lot.

But what I see occuring there is nonetheless a great improvement over the way things were going before we stepped in. If you have ideas that can make the process even more efficient, please, the soapbox is yours.

[bmulligan]

The occupation just isn't going well. Bush needs to get serious.

As if 150,000 troops isn't serious enough. What do you suggest Jason, firing squads instead of itchy trigger fingers at checkpoints? Or maybe 24 hour curfew? Or how about we tear gas the entire population ? Should soldiers gang rape the women to keep people in line? Withold food, medicine, water and electricity? Have I left any of Saddams tactics out? Probably.

[Jason McCullough]

Right, the old "you don't have any alternatives!!!! stop criticizing!!!" line. Like liberals haven't been suggesting the right way to do it (for god's sakes, get the UN in there!) since day one.

You know how many US soldiers were killed in postwar Germany and Japan? Zero.

[voltaic]

Like liberals haven't been suggesting the right way to do it (for god's sakes, get the UN in there!) since day one.
There's a number of non-liberals who took the same position, dude, even on these boards. Hearing the liberal vs. conservative party politics bit on every single issue is really getting old from you and from television politicians. Just my 2 rubles.

[JeffL]

Right, the old "you don't have any alternatives!!!! stop criticizing!!!" line. Like liberals haven't been suggesting the right way to do it (for god's sakes, get the UN in there!) since day one.

You know how many US soldiers were killed in postwar Germany and Japan? Zero.

Jason, we have some good arguments and discussions, but I've gotta agree, this drawing the line where everyone liberal is right and smart and good and everyone conservative is wrong and dumb and evil is beneath what I perceive is your intellect. The comment was that many people were bitching without offering any real and viable alternatives. And people from all perspectives, liberal, conservative, libertarian, you know, PEOPLE, have both bitched and offered suggestions.

"Get the U.N. in there?" OK - how? How many? In what roles? How to get them to actually contribute in a way that will make a difference? Obviously many nations are seeing our kids getting picked off and would raise hell if their leaders sent their soldiers in.

Also - I'll have to do some digging on Japan, but I'll be willing to make a bet with you on Americans killed during post-war Germany. Also, Japan and Germany were not surrounded by nations whose leaders feel their power and way of life would be mortally threatened if Germany and Japan were restored to health.

[Jason McCullough]

Try as I might, I can't remember the last time a conservative here criticized Bush's handling of the war, unless you count bmulligan.

The entire point of having the UN involved is it legitimizes the operation. Christ, if the rest of the world doesn't trust us, what do the Iraqis think?

As to the specifics - the troop count probably needs to be doubled, based on the population/troop ratios seen in post-war Europe, Bosnia, and so on. Plenty of people have provided detailed plans (Kaplan's one of them, actually), lots of them experts in the field with experience. This isn't just sniping, damn it.

Kaplan (http://www.msnbc.com/news/948181.asp?0sl=-11) cites the "no postwar deaths in Germany or Japan" thing here. We didn't take any in Bosnia or Kosovo, either.

[Chris Nahr]

I'm not aware of any deaths of American soldiers in postwar Germany either. Sure, there will have been the occasional crimes or accidents but there wasn't any kind of organised resistance or acts of terrorism. Kaplan talks about "postwar combat deaths" specifically, and I'm pretty sure there weren't any. Neither in Japan as far as I know.

[JeffL]

Try as I might, I can't remember the last time a conservative here criticized Bush's handling of the war, unless you count bmulligan.

OK - so who are the people you label conservatives here? And the person was talking in a perspective beyond the QT3 board.



The entire point of having the UN involved is it legitimizes the operation. Christ, if the rest of the world doesn't trust us, what do the Iraqis think?

The Iraqi's I've had dinner with think "Thank you U.S. for giving us a chance to be free."



As to the specifics - the troop count probably needs to be doubled, based on the population/troop ratios seen in post-war Europe, Bosnia, and so on. Plenty of people have provided detailed plans (Kaplan's one of them, actually), lots of them experts in the field with experience. This isn't just sniping, damn it.

Most of the deaths are precisely sniping.

Kaplan (http://www.msnbc.com/news/948181.asp?0sl=-11) cites the "no postwar deaths in Germany or Japan" thing here. We didn't take any in Bosnia or Kosovo, either.[/quote]

Ah, a "neutral" observer. He's wrong. One example is the Neo-Nazi Werewolf terrorists. There were reports as late as 1947 of their activites, although they wer most active in the months directly after the surrender.

They assassinated local officials who cooperated with the Allies. The sniped and killed quite a few Allies, including Americans. One famous incident was their bombing of the Bremen police headquarters (or city hall, don't remember precisely, but it is widely documented) - that killed about a half dozen Americans and over 30 Germans. They are credited with assassinating the first Soviet Commandant of Berlin (Berzarin). They tried to destroy as much of the German infrastructure as they could through sabotage. They went into the Berlin Museum and destroyed "millions of dollars of artworks and caused inestimable cultural damage." They assassinated many mayors and post-war German statesmen (e.g., Dr. Franz Oppenhoff (sp).)

Even so - I'm not sure what it has to do with anything. As previously discussed, Germany was not surrounded by nations led by people whose existence and powerbase depends upon the populus believing that the U.S. is evil and that democracy is just a synonym for evil. The sniping and sabotage in postwar Germany was led by Nazi's holding on and fighting back (perhaps an analogy to the Bath'ists) but they didn't have the infusion of foreign led terrorism that we're seeing in Iraq.

[Chris Nahr]

Ah yes, the Werwolf. (They weren't "Neo-Nazis" but plain old Nazis, by the way.) You're right, I've forgotten about them as they were basically ineffectual. At the risk of further putting my foot in my mouth, your statements about their activities seem rather exaggerated. Do you have any links or references for that?

[Shawn Metcalf]

The main benefit of bringing in the United Nations is that several nations have pledged to send troops or are considered willing to do so, but only if there's another U.N. resolution asking nations to do this. India has 17,000 lined up, and France and Germany are (apparently) good for quite a few as well.

The Bush administration has been reluctant to do so, but may finally be pursuing this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23276-2003Aug20.html). The question here is how serious they are; if the resolution just asks for troops and money without granting the U.N any authority, it's less likely to get passed.

[JeffL]

Ah yes, the Werwolf. (They weren't "Neo-Nazis" but plain old Nazis, by the way.) You're right, I've forgotten about them as they were basically ineffectual. At the risk of further putting my foot in my mouth, your statements about their activities seem rather exaggerated. Do you have any links or references for that?

Actually, Goebbles (boy is that sp) coined the term Neo-Nazi at the time. But you're right, they were actually just hanging on Nazis. Remember the scene in the Nuremburg Trials movie, years ago, when one of the Allied leaders commented that he warned his driver about the wires that the Werewolves would string across roads to decapitate Allies when they saw them driving in open cars or motorcycles?

Yeah, I'm an old history buff and have a few books on their activities - when I get home I'll give you a reference. I think the old warhorse historian Whiting has one that is titled Werewolf or something like that. A lot of interesting data, but his style veers off in a weird direction when he describes one of their major assassinations. The incident where they blew up the police station and the killings and sabotage is pretty well documented - I didn't go look it up for this discussion, I'd read it all some time ago in my WWII readings. It wasn't considered a huge deal at the time, because we were so relieved after winning the war that relatively speaking it was a small amount and we were so used to stories of massive killing and massive sabatoge, etc. So when histories have been written about them, they were called rather uneffective, because they were only killing a leader here or there, a few dozen soldiers here or there, a few mayors or leading citizens who were cooperating, a power plant or factory here and there (in fact, there are stories of the German polulace fighting these guys because they were destroying the factories where they were hoping they'd find post-war work.) Relatively speaking, they were ineffective - we knew the task would take years and they didn't deter us and the people "back home" weren't up in arms over that level of killing and destruction.

[Jason McCullough]

Ok, to be more specific: I don't recall anyone on here who vocally supported the war and then disagreed with Bush on anything at all since. It happens to be the people I disagree on this are all conservatives, not that I'm some Democratic party flack.

Jeff, I can't argue with personal experience, other than to point out that those Iraqis you had dinner with are going to be wildly unrepresentative of the whole. Were they expatriates?

What is has to do with anything is that I think the US has far too few people on the ground as a result of Wolfowitz & Rumsfeld's pet theories about military transformation, and we're taking far more casualties than we need to as a result, not to mention potentially ruining the entire operation. Every day that Iraq doesn't get any better is one day closer to fucking it up and turning the thing into Angola. There's also the "if it doesn't look like you're in control, that makes it less likely that you will be" feedback loop thing.

[Rywill]

Ok, to be more specific: I don't recall anyone on here who vocally supported the war and then disagreed with Bush on anything at all since. It happens to be the people I disagree on this are all conservatives, not that I'm some Democratic party flack.
Well, you must have a pretty awful (or selective) memory. I was definitely pro-war and have been anti-Bush on almost everything else, including his prewar diplomacy and post-war rebuilding. Although I'm critical of Bush, I also agree with Jeff's sentiment that the press and folks on this board have a tendency to exaggerate the scope of the problems in postwar Iraq and minimize the problems in prewar Iraq.

In other words, I wish we had been more diplomatic before the war so we had more folks supporting us (some, like France and Russia, never would have, but others probably would). I'm glad we went to war even despite the diplomatic screwups. I wish we had more troops in Iraq and were working harder at getting the infrastructure up and running. But I don't think it's a quagmire or an enormous problem, and I definitely, definitely think the average Iraqi is vastly better off since we've invaded. I think the press has a tendency to concentrate on the bad stuff in Iraq, which is just them being rational businesspeople because that's what puts eyes on the TV and moves newspapers.

[JeffL]

Jeff, I can't argue with personal experience, other than to point out that those Iraqis you had dinner with are going to be wildly unrepresentative of the whole. Were they expatriates?

No, they are heartland Iraqis over here for a short time for training on how to better rebuild the infrastructure. The dozen we had dinner with were part of a group of about 45, they come from all over Iraq (and will be going back to their home areas in the north, central, and south - in fact, they enjoyed jokingly putting each other down for their different locales), some were managers, some were engineers, many were what would be considered line-level laborers. They argue that they are wildly representative of the Iraqi population and the view we are getting in the media here is wildly skewed. Of course it's anecdotal - but so is what we see over here, from afar. One of the fellows at dinner basically lays down electrical wiring - he said that when the TV cameras were in his village, several of them tried to tell the reporters how grateful they were, but the reporter and cameraman kept looking until they got someone who would complain. So who knows? They are the only Iraqis I've been able to talk directly with, so who am I to say they are "wrong?"


What is has to do with anything is that I think the US has far too few people on the ground as a result of Wolfowitz & Rumsfeld's pet theories about military transformation, and we're taking far more casualties than we need to as a result, not to mention potentially ruining the entire operation. Every day that Iraq doesn't get any better is one day closer to fucking it up and turning the thing into Angola. There's also the "if it doesn't look like you're in control, that makes it less likely that you will be" feedback loop thing.

I agree in that I think there should be a large multinational force on the ground. I don't agree that this would result in less casualties. The type of guerrilla warfare that we're being hit with, where someone in the upper floor of a building fires an RPG through a window at some soldiers in the streets of Bagdhad, isn't going to be surpressed by more soldiers. Unless you want to fill every building and home with soldiers, and become much more oppressive. That isn't a matter of needing more soldiers, that's a matter of changing your stance.

[Jason McCullough]

Fair enough, Rywill. I'm just getting annoyed at the constant up-is-down commentary coming from the right in general - "you see, it was a really a truimph for us that they blew up the UN buidling, because that means they're getting desperate," and so on.

Good to hear, Jeff, at least a few people like us.

On the troop count thing, it bothers me that the only people saying we don't need any more are political, not military. The military quite clearly thought we needed more in the runup to the war, all the ex-military types say we do, and the current military bosses tend to clam up when the subject comes up.

[Daniel Morris]

It was a triumph for us that they blew up the UN building, because that means they're getting desperate.



Please note: This commentary comes from the left.

[bago]

The thing with the UN bit is that they want veto power of the US in post-war decisions. Cynically I would say it has to do wtih covering the tracks of the "oil-for-food" program so wonderfully mis-managed for years. Billions of dollars missing and no accountability.

I'm guessing that after things are a bit more stabilized (in regards to rounding up the financiers and organizers of what is left, and the securement of all vital documentation), you'd see more co-operation with the UN.

When the bounty for just taking a shot at a soldier goes up to 1000 dollars, you know you're putting the squeeze on.

[Machfive]

Right, the old "you don't have any alternatives!!!! stop criticizing!!!" line. Like liberals haven't been suggesting the right way to do it (for god's sakes, get the UN in there!) since day one.

You know how many US soldiers were killed in postwar Germany and Japan? Zero.

I didn't say liberal, in my post.

I don't fucking ASSUME what people's political views are because of their stance on ONE issue.

But I like how you implied I'm a conservative. That's cute.

Grow up. :P

Liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans - PARTIES are the problem with the US. There is no room for a grey area in politics, which is just a recipe for disaster, as evidenced by the inability of the political machine to accomplish anything reasonable in a fair amount of time.

[Brad Grenz]

Don't worry about Jason, he's a complete douche.


You know how many US soldiers were killed in postwar Germany and Japan? Zero.

Like Lackey points out this is inaccurate, but it's good to see you sticking to your comfort zone of parroting things you read that sounded good but which you have no idea are actually true. In Germany and Japan we were surrounded by countries that had been invaded by those countries, abused in horrific manner and hated the fuck out of Germany and Japan after it was done. The allied forces, as their literal saviors, we the focus of regional hatred and therefore didn't not become magnates for extremist who wanted to make attacks of opprotunity. Add in the thing Morris mentions that successful democracies in Germany and Japan didn't threaten the power structures in France, Poland, China, Korea and whoever else and as such did not need to be undermined by those powers. So even if it were true, which it isn't, it wouldn't matter because it's a bullshit comparison in the first place.

I'm glad we're looking for a new UN mandate and some more troops, though I hope Japan doesn't puss out. At the very least I think some sort of resolution concerned with providing troops to secure the UN's operations in country may be presented. I don't think the administration is ready to give up control which is what France, Germany, Russia and China all really want. I think an agreement is possible for UN forces to come in and provide security for things like humanitarian aide. Handing over the ports, for example, freeing up American and British forces to do more hunt and kill type counter terrorism.

The problem with the troop count I heard on NPR was we have like half the available Army troops in country right now. They are scheduled to be rotated out after a year and the other half will come in at that point. We don't have the numbers to increase presence AND relieve the current force in the future.

[Lizard_King]

Just because we've gotten accelerated the pace at which a war occurs doesn't mean the pace at which rebuilding occurs has increased accordingly. If anything, it's gonna YEARS, 3, 4, hell, maybe a decade, before things have improved a great lot.

It's precisely that which is the problem, literally speaking. The fact that we are not dealing with a defeated people that have been smashed into the dirt WWII-style makes reconstruction much harder in everything but the (important but far from the whole story) infrastructure sense. We can expect Iraq to take longer and be far more challenging and costly than any scenario the US has confronted before because of that alone, never mind the difference modern media makes in the popular perception of events.

At any rate, if self-declared leftists are pissed off about Bush apologia on the part of "conservatives", I assure you that there are any number of comparable phenomena in your team. Like, for example, the current crop of people who apparently took military sciences and occupation strategy clandestinely throughout their lives and feel equipped to say that twice the soldiers or whatever would be the magic number to make all those nasty problems go away. Or the ones that crow about the difference UN control would make, as if Bosnia had constant electricity in buildings other than those owned by the UN, without any sabotage efforts to excuse them beyond the results of their own bureaucratic incompetence. Fr' instance.

Jeff, I can't argue with personal experience, other than to point out that those Iraqis you had dinner with are going to be wildly unrepresentative of the whole.
Why? Simply because they disagree with the catechisms non-Iraqis recite constantly about Iraqi dissatisfaction? Surely you must have more than just an ideological objection to that example.

[Jason McCullough]

"Post-war germany had a terrorist organization" isn't incompatible with "no US soldiers were killed in post-war germany." Does anyone have any evidence/quotes whatever about them dying in Germany, Japan, Kosovo, or Bosnia?

You might want to take up the troop count thing with Janes and all the other ex-generals.

I like how suggesting there's not enough troops in Iraq is *the exact same* as pretending that a UN building getting blown up is actually a triumph.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

...As previously discussed, Germany was not surrounded by nations led by people whose existence and powerbase depends upon the populus believing that the U.S. is evil and that democracy is just a synonym for evil. The sniping and sabotage in postwar Germany was led by Nazi's holding on and fighting back (perhaps an analogy to the Bath'ists) but they didn't have the infusion of foreign led terrorism that we're seeing in Iraq.

While Germany wasn't surrounded by them, the Eastern Bloc does fit your description quite nicely. I'm not saying they're the same as Iraq's neighbours, just pointing it out.

I'm somewhat sceptical towards the claims in regard to foreign terrorists: There seems to be an implication that the governments of surrounding countries are sponsoring terrorism in Iraq. Does not that seem like an awfully big risk to take, faced with the possibility of US retaliation?

[Andrew Mayer]

There is no magical "Troop Wand" for us to wave. Between Iraq and Afghanistan over half the US Army is already deployed overseas.

Talk about infrastructure all you like, but when we disbanded the Iraqi army we destroyed the one structure we needed the most, and created a fresh supply of trained troops for our enemies.

Troops are being killed in Shia territory (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3172645.stm). Is it any surprise that the UN bombing may have been an inside job? To the Americans, maybe. But blowing up water mains and targeting buildings takes knowledge.

Meanwhile Saudi Arabia is herding their radical elements straight into Iraq.

[Jason McCullough]

Josh Marshall has a couple of interesting interviews with the guy who wrote the Age of Sacred Terror up here (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/aug0303.html#0821031034pm) and here (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/aug0304.html#082203338pm).

Summary: Iraq had no ties to Al-Queda; the circumstancial evidence points to them on the UN bombing; Iraq is now filling up with all sorts of pissed-off jihad groups which actually aren't related to the regional governments (Al Qaida, Ansar Al-Islam, etc.); The 5/11 bombing in Saudi Arabia was their wakeup call, and the Saudis are now beating the hell out of their domestic extremists.

[Brad Grenz]

While Germany wasn't surrounded by them, the Eastern Bloc does fit your description quite nicely. I'm not saying they're the same as Iraq's neighbours, just pointing it out.

Coming out of WWII the Soviets had to rebuild and consolidate power in those nations they were occupying too. Everybody was too beaten down at that point to engage in free-lance anti-capitalist/democracy terrorism. The Cold War tensions were there from the beginning, but it wasn't a case where post war West Germany was consider so tenuously held that the Russia could make a play for it, and there weren't private radicals in Poland or whatever who had any interest in such a thing. No one wanted to immediately start up WWIII, certainly not Russia who had just witnessed the US demonstrate that they were the sole nuclear power in the world. The situations simply aren't analogous.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

While Germany wasn't surrounded by them, the Eastern Bloc does fit your description quite nicely. I'm not saying they're the same as Iraq's neighbours, just pointing it out.

...but it wasn't a case where post war West Germany was consider so tenuously held that the Russia could make a play for it, and there weren't private radicals in Poland or whatever who had any interest in such a thing. No one wanted to immediately start up WWIII, certainly not Russia who had just witnessed the US demonstrate that they were the sole nuclear power in the world. The situations simply aren't analogous.

Situations are never analogous, as I tried (but failed) to imply. However, I don't think Iraq's neighbours (or those hostile towards the US; I don't think Jordan and Turkey are fanatically anti-American) are less scared of US power than Russia was.

I have no problems believing that radicals from other countries are active in Iraq, but I have a hard time believing their governments are actively supporting them; the US has shown that it doesn't even require hard evidence to act, and making moves against what must be the biggest overseas concentration of US troops is quite clearly far more dangerous than allowing democracy to flourish next-door.

[Brad Grenz]

It's tricky when you talk about governments actually being invloved. I'd probably agree that it isn't official policy from the top in Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia to fuck around with post-war Iraq, but that doesn't mean others in the government aren't "taking initiative" on their own. There's quite a few censored pages about Saudi involvement in that report on 9/11. It may not have been a Saudi military special operations mission, but it appears there was significant involvement within some parts of the government.

[Daniel Morris]

I'd probably agree that it isn't official policy from the top in Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia to fuck around with post-war Iraq,


In the first two instances, you'd be wrong.

[Jason McCullough]

Because the governments of Syria and Iran are suicidal, apparently.

[Daniel Morris]

Because the governments of Syria and Iran are suicidal, apparently.


It would only be "suicidal" of these governments to NOT muck with events in Iraq. Young Iranians already protest regularly for democratic reform -- the example of a free Iraq nextdoor would be the death knell for the rule of the ayatollahs. Assad faces a similar situation; Syria is not a backward country, it's just saddled with a backward dictatorship.

Syria and Iran have no choice but to continue betting that the fashionably isolationist attitudes of people like Mr. McCullough prevent any further major military action by the world's democracies.

--

Returning to the subject of the UN bombing, one would hope that the attack might serve as a moral awakening for the UN. For many years, the UN has viewed terrorism as an understandable (if deplorable) reaction of one side in a dispute versus an asymmetrically more powerful opponent. Now that the world's foremost humanitarian organization and champion of global peace has itself been lethally targeted by terrorists, perhaps the UN will absorb the lesson that terror is a nihilistic tactic beyond the pale, and adjust its thinking accordingly.

[Jason McCullough]

For many years, the UN has viewed terrorism as an understandable (if deplorable) reaction of one side in a dispute versus an asymmetrically more powerful opponent.

Can you source this?

David, there appears to only be a few nuts in the Pentagon who think Syria, etc. are running an armed insurrection to throw us out, and they're the same people who insisted Iraq was practically sitting on a nuke.

[Lizard_King]

For many years, the UN has viewed terrorism as an understandable (if deplorable) reaction of one side in a dispute versus an asymmetrically more powerful opponent.

Can you source this?

I believe that is a common-sense assertion that is fair to make. Look at the language the UN uses to describe terrorist tactic attacks against civilians vs military strikes against enemy targets; it is one and the same. Always, it is a "cycle" of violence, never a situation where the heinousness of the tactics should drive one to support either side. I think Daniel is correct in suggesting that striking at the UN might have an impact on that, but I am far more skeptical.


David, there appears to only be a few nuts in the Pentagon who think Syria, etc. are running an armed insurrection to throw us out, and they're the same people who insisted Iraq was practically sitting on a nuke.
Well, Syria was creating all kinds of trouble at the very beginning, from providing a venue for Baathist officials to escape through to providing an entryway for prospective fedayeen. But I think Rumsfeld & Co's direct threats did a great a deal to dampen baby Assad's enthusiasm about the whole venture.
Iran is a whole 'nother mess, but I think geographic location + political interests make them a prime suspect in any fundamentalist stirrings. Due to the very nature of the beast, it is always going to be difficult to prove their involvement, but they would be fools not to do everything in their power to prevent successful Iraqi reconstruction. As would the Russians, for that matter. In any case, they are damned if they do (and get caught) and damned if they don't; it's really more a question of degree than a binary whether they are involved.

[quatoria]

So, in other words, no. You can't source ANY of these allegations.

[Lizard_King]

So, in other words, no. You can't source ANY of these allegations.

So, in other words, neutral terms used to describe cruel, ineffective tactics, are not a symptom of fence-sitting in your world. Mind you, its not that I don't understand why the UN does it, I'm just saying it is a reality.

If you really wish to go through news articles quoting the UN on any terrorism related topic, that's up to you. I am sure you will find a plethora of examples, and virtually no counter-examples. But if you've missed it this far along, then it's probably not worth it.

[quatoria]

So, in other words, no. You can't source ANY of these allegations.

So, in other words, neutral terms used to describe cruel, ineffective tactics, are not a symptom of fence-sitting in your world. Mind you, its not that I don't understand why the UN does it, I'm just saying it is a reality.

Or perhaps they're the rational manner manner for an organization whose stated aim is to prevent war and maintain peace between nations to speak about such an emotionally charged and potentially explosive situation.

[Lizard_King]

Or perhaps they're the rational manner manner for an organization whose stated aim is to prevent war and maintain peace between nations to speak about such an emotionally charged and potentially explosive situation.
Whatever. You can rationalize it for whatever reason you choose. Daniel's point was, I believe that the UN has refused to condemn, for instance, acts of terrorism directed towards civilians as a means of political struggle. Whether you agree or not, I don't believe it is germane to his point, which is only made further by what you state.

[Rywill]

So, in other words, no. You can't source ANY of these allegations.

So, in other words, neutral terms used to describe cruel, ineffective tactics, are not a symptom of fence-sitting in your world. Mind you, its not that I don't understand why the UN does it, I'm just saying it is a reality.

Or perhaps they're the rational manner manner for an organization whose stated aim is to prevent war and maintain peace between nations to speak about such an emotionally charged and potentially explosive situation.
I'm not sure if you're trying to say "The UN doesn't need to condemn terrorism because terrorists aren't a nation" or "The UN shouldn't condemn terrorists because that might inflame an already tense situation." Either way, I disagree with you. If it's the first one, I think the UN is supposed to help maintain peace in general, not just peace between nations (for example, they should get involved in internal ethnic cleansings or the rebellion in Liberia). If it's the second one, I can't believe you think the best way to ensure peace is to allow terrorists to continue to operate. Terrorists = enemies of peace. Maybe in your mind the UN should never take sides or something, but if so, that's going to make them even more irrelevant in world affairs--because although in some conflicts neither side is really right, oftentimes one side has the moral high ground. If the UN refuses to recognize that because they don't want to alienate or hurt the feelings of, for example, Hamas...nobody is going to listen to them.

[Daniel Morris]

I can't believe you think the best way to ensure peace is to allow terrorists to continue to operate.

This is exactly what many believe, though they are in deep denial about the logical route between their arguments and this conclusion.

And it's precisely because they fail to appreciate or even acknowledge such a thing as "moral high ground" in a political dispute. Moral high ground? No, no, no -- not for these cool, considerate men. "This is 2003, don't you know?" "Things aren't so black and white." "Let's view this rationally, please." Etc. to the point of nausea.

In their eyes, the UN should be an impartial judge even in a courtroom in which the defendant is wearing a bib of dynamite and threatening to blow the courtroom to smithereens. (In light of the Baghdad bombing, this analogy seems more than hypothetical.)

If you hope, as I do, for the UN to serve as the forum for ensuring international peace, then you must agree that the forum needs to be built on a foundation of shared international values. Ideally, I'd like to see democracy be one of those values -- the votes of Assad and Qaddafi have no place in a forum of international peace. But let's forget democracy for a second. How about, as a more "rational" starting point, we stick to the real basics, like discounting the arguments of those who plot and conduct mass murder against innocent civilians?

Such people deserve no seat at the table. Their nihilism is anthithetical to any notion of international law and order. They deserve the full horror and enmity of the United Nations.

[quatoria]

So, in other words, no. You can't source ANY of these allegations.

So, in other words, neutral terms used to describe cruel, ineffective tactics, are not a symptom of fence-sitting in your world. Mind you, its not that I don't understand why the UN does it, I'm just saying it is a reality.

Or perhaps they're the rational manner manner for an organization whose stated aim is to prevent war and maintain peace between nations to speak about such an emotionally charged and potentially explosive situation.
I'm not sure if you're trying to say "The UN doesn't need to condemn terrorism because terrorists aren't a nation" or "The UN shouldn't condemn terrorists because that might inflame an already tense situation." Either way, I disagree with you. If it's the first one, I think the UN is supposed to help maintain peace in general, not just peace between nations (for example, they should get involved in internal ethnic cleansings or the rebellion in Liberia). If it's the second one, I can't believe you think the best way to ensure peace is to allow terrorists to continue to operate.

Jesus. How is it that people lose the ability to read and comprehend simply what is written, when we discuss issues like these? Barely a post goes by without someone taking a simple statement to mean something entirely different than its face value. I was talking about language used to describe a situation, and nothing more: responding to Lizard King's griping about "neutral terms". In what psychotic world does that equate to a statement that I don't think terrorists should be rooted out, or that I think terrorism is somehow a tool of peace?

For fuck's sake, people. Not everything that someone says is indication of adherence to some form of crackpot idealogy that you've invented in your head to demonize all conservatives/liberals/whatever the fuck your personal boogeyman group is.

[Rywill]

If you think terrorism should be rooted out and is antithetical to peace, why do you have a problem with the UN denouncing terrorism? I mean, I'm really sorry for assuming that your "The UN shouldn't denounce terrorism" argument meant that you thought the UN should leave terrorists alone. I guess you think the UN should try to stop terrorism, but never say anything about it? That's going to be a little weird in a body that makes decisions through debate and voting and passing resolutions, but hey, maybe somehow you've got it all worked out. Let me know how that plan works, so I can get on board with you.