I’ve some questions

1) Why do you support deomcracy in Iraq and not Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait et al ? If you do, then why does the government sell these countries weapons ?

2) If you were an Iraqi would you trust the US when it invaded your country, when it says it’s mostly for the benefit of the Iraqi people ? The US gave support for Saddam Hussein before, why should they be trusted now supposing asn an Iraqi you wanted rid of Saddam ?

3) Why would ot be OK to shoot looters in Iraq, but presumably not in New Orleans after Katrina for example ?

4) In two wars the US have killed more Iraqis than saddam hussein ever did. How can you call the others “mass” murdering scum ? They might be murderers all right, but the scale is important.

1. How do you know I don’t support liberal democracy in those other countries? If you are going to make broad assertions like that, you should have at least a little bit of evidence.
   • I support the national security interests of the USA. In the long term, that is best served by the emergence of liberal democracies in other nations, but short term tactics may dictate otherwise for limited periods.
   • Better to light a single candle than curse the darkness. Better to work on liberal democracy in one country than guarantee failure by trying to do everything at once.
   • I was unaware that my opinion was the controlling factor for federal government approval of weapons sales.
2. Yes. There is plenty of historical evidence in that regard, particularly since WWII. When the USA gave support to the Iraqi Ba’ath, it was to prevent the invasion and occupation of Iraq by a foreign oppressive regime (Iran). Moreover, what’s the superior alternative to trusting the USA? Trusting the Caliphascists?
3. Again, you are assigning opinions to me for which you have no evidence. It makes me doubt your good faith in discussing the issue. As it turns out, I think shooting the looters in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina would have been a good idea.
4. Your assertion is false. The USA has killed vastly fewer Iraqis than the Iraqi Ba’ath (which killed from 1 - 3 million)⁴. One notes that the USA has also killed far fewer Iraqis than its post-Ba’ath regime opponents in Iraq. Even if you take the Lancet report as legitimate, the vast majority of those deaths were the direct result of the anti-USA forces in Iraq. If you think that Iraqis should support the forces that kill the fewest Iraqis, then you think they should support the USA / Coalition forces, which puts you in agreement with me. Glad I could clear that up for you.

---

⁴ Changed from “2-3”. Further research has lead to me conclude that 1 is a better lower bound.

i have a few questions of my own, for wood:

1. why is your sense of right and wrong inverted ?

2. if the u.s. is so evil in your expressed views, why do you continue to live here ?

3. what form of government do you believe to be the most benevolent towards its citizens ?

4. do you think the msm have any credibility on any issue ?

Firstly, I don’t live in the US, I live in Scotland. Secondly, disagreeing with the imperialist folly that is Iraq does not make me “hate america”. The neo-con architects of this war, who have utterly discredited themselves with their shockingly innacurate predictions of the post war landscape remain quiet, but yet you continue to bang the drum in support, of this war of “liberation”. Never forget that the ‘advisors’ who planned this war told us in 2002 “A year from now I’d be surprised if there’s not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush.” How can you treat these people as if they are foreign policy experts ?

Foreign powers who invade other countries are never welcomed. There are no “good” iraqis to hand power over to - observe the rise of al-Sadr and his kin post elections. We were not invited. We had no mandate. We had nothing to latch on to, no legitimacy. It wasn’t a question of being tactful, respectful, munificent, or handing sweets to children. We were impostors, and that is all.

Where do you get your figure that the Baathist regieme killed 2 - 3 million Iraqis ? For someone who I’m sure was amongst the first to disregard the lancet figures, 1 million people is a pretty high margin of error for a start. It hardly sounds accurate to me. We tolerate brutal dictators all over the world, and the fanatical islamist lunatics who are lining up to replace Saddam are hardly the sort of people you associate with liberal deomcracy. At least saddam was a secularist and had won his decades long war with the fanatics. If we could support him when he dropped chemical weapons on Iranian troops , what’s so bad about ignoring the fact that he butchers islamic fundamentalists at home ? There was no threat from Caliphatists until we stepped in.

When you talk about democracy, you must also know that the US are in no way interested in a Saudi Arabia which is democratic in the sense that its government reflects the opinions of its population. That would be bad for us. How should arabs feel when they see the UK prime minister waffling about spreading freedom to the middle east, hence why the publc should support his war in Iraq whilst at the same time selling Euro fighters to SA. That the UK & US have their interests at heart ? That their policy is in anyway being applied consistently ? No sane person can see any of this as consistent. We attack Iraq because we suspected they may have been developing WMD, that remember, was the whole reason for the war. No WMD ? Oh well - it’s to free the Iraqi people. But wait a minute - North Korea, another axis of evil country publicly announce their intention to develop WMD and nothing is done - why is this ? I can hear your answer - North Korea would threaten it’s neighbours and has a stronger military - pragmatically Iraq was an easier target. Real answer - North Korea doesn’t have lots of oil nor can it threaten to destablise any oil rich neighbours.

Anyway - Imperialism requires a home population willing to run the imperial possesion, observe how during the days of the British Empire, we ran the Indian civil service, our top graduates would go there to work. No harvard or princeton grad. would have any interest in moving to Baghdad to live. All great empires export people, the US doesn’t. This war is the same as any other america has been involved in since WW2, they will eventually cut and run, but they’ll have made sure Iraqi oil will be available to US markets when its needed. They’ll have also made sure that the Saudi or Kuwaiti oilfields are not threatened by an aggresive neighbour, who if he owned them, would have the world by the throat. The most succesful model of nation building by the US is Germany and Japan where troops where stationed en-masse for decades. Show me another country where the US style of “go in, shoot the bad guy and make ‘em vote” has worked ? The difference is that they had a popular mandate to be in Germany and Japan, and they’ve none in Iraq. Deep down you must know this.

Mr. Wood;

In general, I note that you evaded addressing any of my points, and continued to attribute to me opinions for which you have no evidence and frequently are inaccurate. That kind of thing is one reason I find people like you so un-persuasive — it’s a clear “if you don’t have the facts, pound the table” response. Nevertheless, I will attempt to address your points, such as I can extract.

How can you treat these people as if they are foreign policy experts?

I don’t. This is an excellent example of what I was thinking of in my lead paragraph.

Foreign powers who invade other countries are never welcomed

Clearly false, as you show by your own later examples of Germany and Japan. If you added “at first” to you statement, it might be true, but that would undercut the rest of your argument, wouldn’t it?

There are no “good” iraqis to hand power over to […] fanatical islamist lunatics who are lining up to replace Saddam are hardly the sort of people you associate with liberal deomcracy

That would seem to validate my original thesis, wouldn’t it? That the carnage was inevitable, it was just a matter of time. I, personally, don’t believe that, but I fail to see how you can and still argue as you do.

We had nothing to latch on to, no legitimacy

“We”? I thought you were aghast at the USA as a citizen of the UK. Are you now talking about the Coalition as a whole? As for legitimacy, my study of history indicates that a crushing military defeat generally suffices for legitimacy. I will cite again Germany, Japan, Korea. Could you cite a counter-example, or is this a subtle attempt to discredit the concept of invasions by completely ignoring history?

Where do you get your figure that the Baathist regieme killed 2 - 3 million Iraqis? […] It hardly sounds accurate to me.

Yes, it’s not very accurate. When did I claim otherwise? It does, however, rely on far more substantive data than the Lancet study, which is continuing to be laughed at by ever greater numbers of people with clue.

As for Iraqi deaths by Ba’ath, we could start with the Iran-Iraq War, an adventure launched by the Iraqi Ba’ath. That cost Iraq roughly 500,000. We could also look at the 1991 uprising in southern Iraq. There was the Anfal Campaign against the Kurds. The mass executions of Iraqi Communists early in the regime. The deaths resulting from the sanctions, a direct result of the Ba’ath regime’s refusal to comply with its treaties and the UN. And note — I haven’t even touched on the day to day retail terror that is part and parcel of such a regime. See Republic of Fear for more detail on that. Even anti-war types support a lower limit of 1 million.

All of that took only 5-10 minutes of research. The fact that you were apparently unaware of that history causes me some doubt as to the depth of your understanding of the situation.

At least saddam was a secularist

That’s a recommendation? Secularists have a far higher tally of dead than the religious this century. Or in the history of the world. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the terms “USSR” and “Maoist China”. Try netsearching those for some interesting results.

There was no threat from Caliphatists until we stepped in

World Trade Center, 1993. USS Cole, 2000. Khobar Towers, 1998. Bali, 2002. Threats of nulear genocide against Israel. That’s what you call no threat? I disagree.

you must also know that the US are in no way interested in a Saudi Arabia which is democratic

False. The current foreign policy appartchiks have no such interest, but the American Street thinks it would be a fine idea. It would not be “bad for us [USA?]”, it would be bad for the careers of the appartchiks. I frequently complain about that situation, search my archives for the phrase “Saudi Entity”, as I refuse to dignify that regime with its claimed title.

How should arabs feel when they see the UK prime minister waffling about spreading freedom to the middle east, hence why the publc should support his war in Iraq whilst at the same time selling Euro fighters to SA

Shouldn’t you be talking to PM Blair about that, not whining to some American war-monger?

That their policy is in anyway being applied consistently?

OK, it’s not. Your point is …? See the “single candle” quote above.

WMD, that remember, was the whole reason for the war

Utterly false. Try reading what President Bush actually said to the UN.

North Korea, another axis of evil country publicly announce their intention to develop WMD and nothing is done - why is this?

Former Presidents Carter and Clinton. You also seem to be evading the implications of a certain event that occurred on 11 Sep, 2001, which caused a strong re-interpretation of facts on the ground.

North Korea would threaten it’s neighbours and has a stronger military - pragmatically Iraq was an easier target. Real answer - North Korea doesn’t have lots of oil nor can it threaten to destablise any oil rich neighbours.

Iraq also has the potential for many follow on advantages in a large region. North Korea is basically sui generis. There is also the fact that the American Hegemony already has an outpost next door, South Korea. Iraq will serve a similar purpose in Arabia.

Imperialism requires a home population willing to run the imperial possesion, observe how during the days of the British Empire, we ran the Indian civil service, our top graduates would go there to work.

That’s so last millenium. The New Model American Empire doesn’t require that. In fact, we bring the administrators here for training, then send them back. It’s the same sort of cultural colonization, but subtler and less costly. The American Hegemony creates states whose interests naturally align with ours, so there is no need of the kind of explicit control the British Empire required.

This war is the same as any other america has been involved in since WW2, they will eventually cut and run

That’s a very funny argument against supporting President Bush and the Republican party, since if (as you seem to) think it’s a bad idea, such support is one’s only choice. However, as far as I can tell, the war in Vietnam is the only example. It didn’t happen in Korea, for instance.

Show me another country where the US style of “go in, shoot the bad guy and make ‘em vote” has worked?

South Korea. Panama. Grenada.

The difference is that they [the USA] had a popular mandate to be in Germany and Japan

You can’t possibly be serious about that. That’s a whitewashed version of history, written because we won. Should Iraq turn out well, people like you will be writing things like that about it 50 years from now.

The difference is that they [the USA] had a popular mandate to be in Germany and Japan

You can’t possibly be serious about that

Of course I’m serious about it. Post war, I don’t recall seeing many demonstrations in West Germany about the presence of US troops there, the west german public wanted them there, realising they were vastly preferable to the soviets. If you wish to dispute this do so, you can then contrast it with the feelings of the Iraqi populace towards the US army. If this is what you call a state “whose interests naturally align with ours” then you are wrong. Tell me, in what way Iraqs interests naturally align with the US ?

When I say “There was no threat from Caliphatists until we stepped in”, clearly I mean that if there were they were making little progress in IRAQ, rather than denying they existed until the war in Iraq began. However I wont throw a hissy fit about false attribution of opinions.

Iraq also has the potential for many follow on advantages in a large region. North Korea is basically sui generis. There is also the fact that the American Hegemony already has an outpost next door, South Korea. Iraq will serve a similar purpose in Arabia.

I’m glad we agree that the war is really an imperial one aimed at securing americas strategic interests, and has little to do with concern for the ordinary Iraqi. However you are way wrong with your last line, they already have Israel and it’s safe to say that each generation of arabs grows up hating america more than the last. I would be very surprised if Iraq became an pro-US outpost in the middle east given the obvious level of disgust the average arab seems to feel towards america. It may become an “outpost” in just the way Saudia Arabia is.

As for your claims that democracy in Saudi Arabia would somehow be good for the US - how do you work this one out given the level of hostilty felt towards the US by arabs ? Democracy in the west bank was hardly good for Israel, unless as a pretext to further isolate the palestenians.

The finger of blame for 9/11 pointed at Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia far more than Iraq.

Could you cite a counter-example, or is this a subtle attempt to discredit the concept of invasions by completely ignoring history?

Now you confuse me, would you say that the occupation by Iraq of Kuwait was legitimate or that the soviet crushing of hungary was legitmate. You contend military might makes it legitimate to occupy a foerign a country yet you accuse me of “last century” thinking ?

Regarding my opinions about the justification for the invasion - I refer you to the support of Iraqi use of chemical weapons against Iranians. This was fine as it prevented Iran from spreading its infulence, now even you must admit that Iran is more influential in Iraq now than it ever was during Saddams tenure. By standards, if this was a policy aim it has been a disaster.

Finally you say that to suggest that WMD was the sole reason given for the invasion is “utterly false” yet we were told “We have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction - that is what this war was about and is about.” I als recall that it was a pre emptive war. Pre empting what if there were no threat from WMD. Anyway you look at the public were given a muddy and concoted story to justify the invasion ans that is why so many americans still believe that there are WMD’s in Iraq.

Mr. Wood;

Of course I’m serious about it. Post war, I don’t recall seeing many demonstrations in West Germany about the presence of US troops there, the west german public wanted them there, realising they were vastly preferable to the soviets.

Perhaps the previous 5 years of total war, the bombing campaigns, etc., the willingness of Allied troops to shoot trouble makers, might have also had something to do with it? Really, if there was a popular mandate, why was there such a fight beforehand? Why did we nuke Japan?

Is your view that the “we didn’t smash them hard enough” camp on the invasion of Iraq is correct? That had we flattened Iraq the way we did Germany and Japan, we could have avoided all this trouble? That we should also have handed over part of Iraq to Turkey, to help create a popular mandate? If not, why do you think there was a popular mandate in Japan and Germany but not Iraq? What made the difference? Should the USA have done the same thing in Iraq? Why or why not?

Oh, and what happened to this claim of yours —

Foreign powers who invade other countries are never welcomed

Except when in Germany and Japan?

When I say “There was no threat from Caliphatists until we stepped in�, clearly I mean that if there were they were making little progress in IRAQ, rather than denying they existed until the war in Iraq began.

So, a foreign policy that moves the Caliphascist threat from being against the American homeland and American citizens and assets, to not, is a failure? I am completely missing your point here.

I’m glad we agree that the war is really an imperial one aimed at securing americas strategic interests

Didn’t I state that back here? It does not follow, however, that it therefore “has little to do with concern for the ordinary Iraqi”. You are presuming that those are opposed or unrelated, whereas I believe that the latter is a key instrumentality for the former.

it’s safe to say that each generation of arabs grows up hating america more than the last

I think not. One need merely look at immigration statistics to see how far off the mark that is. Besides, hasn’t the primary theme there been that Arabs hate America because it supports oppressive Arab dictators? Do Arabs now hate the USA because it deposes oppressive Arab dictators?

Moreover, that’s not very important. The true beauty of the American Hegemony is that it doesn’t depend on foreigners (such as Arabs) liking the USA or Americans. It is that liberal democracies are subject to the pressures of reality in such a way that they cannot help aligning with American interests. The alternative is to become an isolated, poverty-stricken failure. Oppressive regimes can go that route, but liberal democracies cannot.

Oh, and you might want to read up on what the average Japanese thought about Americans pre-WWII, then think about what that means for this thesis of yours in light of post-WWII history.

Democracy in the west bank was hardly good for Israel, unless as a pretext to further isolate the palestenians

Not a pretext, but a good result. It certainly clarified the issue and wiped away many delusions that had been preventing any progress. It is also a perfect illustration of thesis stated above. The Palestinians will be forced, by the hard 2×4 of Reality, to align with American interests. Hamas will as well, or be swept away precisely because of the small amount of democracy that was present. Or, Hamas can abandon any pretense of democracy, which also serves American interests, albeit more indirectly. The USA doesn’t have to do anything, we simply need not help. The Saudi Entity will go the same way, in the long run.

Now you confuse me, would you say that the occupation by Iraq of Kuwait was legitimate or that the soviet crushing of hungary was legitmate. You contend military might makes it legitimate to occupy a foerign a country

Based on the context of the original statement, I presumed you were writing of the legitimacy to install a chosen government because the previous paragraph was about the USA’s inability to do exactly that. Had the USA not intervened, the Iraqi Ba’ath would have been able to install their chosen government, and certainly the USSR succeeded at that in Hungary in 1956. My point is that historically, overwhelming military might has generally sufficed to install governments of choice in foreign nations. In time, that becomes internationally legitimate as well (as, for example, in Hungary and Eastern Europe post-WWII in general). If that’s not what you meant, once again I am at a loss to see your point.

Also, I should have been more clear by writing “the concept of invasion as a mechanism for regime change”.

now even you must admit that Iran is more influential in Iraq now than it ever was during Saddams tenure. By standards, if this was a policy aim it has been a disaster.

Not if Iraq is even more influential in Iran. Given the history of the two nations, I don’t find Iranian hegemony over Iraq at all plausible.

we were told “We have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction - that is what this war was about and is about.� [emphasis added]

Were we? Where? I provide cites, you provide unanchored assertions. Can you show where in the Bush speech to the UN, a key policy address, that was said? What about the legislation authorizing the invasion of Iraq? Or maybe this law from 1998 calling for the overthrow of the Iraqi Ba’ath regime?

The pre-emptiveness was to forestall future attacks from anywhere in Arabia. It’s a long term project. It may not succeed, but I think it’s worth the risk to avoid the necessity of dealing with that threat the way the USA dealt with the Native American threat. See Three Conjectures for more information.

Mr. Wood:

With respect to AOG’s 2×4 of Reality, please do me a favor.

Give a reasonably thorough precis of the status quo ante, and make some mention of the various attitudes held by the actors in the region (e.g., what al Queda thought of US/Western willingness to fight), the actions of our “allies” and the UN, the cynical manipulation of the sanctions by Saddam, etc.

Then explain how our containment policy with respect to Saddam had not reached a dead end.

Then, finally, explain what you would have done instead. Please justify the moral cost of your alternative.

Listen, try as you might to muddy the issue the point about Germany and Japan is that those countries populations did not regard the US as an imperial entity. During the ‘50’s and ‘60’s etc, the German people were in support of US troops presence there. Of course they weren’t invivted, but it was realised by the germans that they were there to (amongst other things) contain Soviet expansion.

Really, if there was a popular mandate, why was there such a fight beforehand? Why did we nuke Japan?

You are either ignoring the point or deliberately trying to twist what I say. I can only assume that you do not regard the level of violence directed against US troops to be representitive of the feelings of the population regarding their presence. There is a world of difference in this respect between post war Japan and Germany and Iraq. How do you explain that ? I said that invading armies are never welcomed. The weren’t, but they were accepted in the post war landscape. There was no resistance to US occupation of which to speak. This is not happening in Iraq. Nor does there appear to be the political will of the US to run the country and foster democratic institutions. They want to get out as soon as the violence is contained, and that - as Germany and Japan shows is simply not enough. The point that there was a war in the first place clearly supports the earlier claim that foreign armies who invade other countries are not welcomed. That does not mean that the occupation will be so bitterly resisted, and surely the resistance to the occupation gives some indication of the mandate for foreign troops presence ? Germany and Japan were the aggressors in the war, thus there was much popular support for WW2. In a ludicrous attempt to make Iraq look like the aggressors the US and UK administrations have concocted various reasons to try and justify the invasion. This remains a central problem and surely helps fuel the hostility felt against the US troops by Iraqis. Germans and Japanese did not have this sense of indignation at an unprovoked attack, their imperial pretensions were at an end and they were supportive of US efforts to rebuild their country. The benevolance of the US in the post war years is something that Europeans and Japanese should always be thankful for, and it demonstrated what a truly great nation the US is and how noble its values are. No one disputes this. Because of the history of the US it has always been reticent about having an empire, occupation and freedom sit uncomfortably together, especially when the US is the agressor.

Ari Fleischer, april 2003 made the quote about WMD being “what this war is about”.

Not if Iraq is even more influential in Iran. Given the history of the two nations, I don’t find Iranian hegemony over Iraq at all plausible

There is not much “history” to speak of between the two nations, given their youth and the foreign interference to gain control of ther regions resources. Both countries have large Shia majorities and it is entirely plausible that a soverign Iraq would willingly develop closer ties with Iran.

Regariding sanctions, they devastated the society, and compelled the population to rely for survival on Saddams(highly efficient) system for distributing basic goods. The sanctions thus undercut the possibility of the kind of popular revolt that had overthrown an impressive series of other monsters who had been strongly supported by the current incumbents in Washington up to the very end of their bloody rule: Marcos, Duvalier, Ceausescu, Mobutu, Suharto, and a long list of others, some of them easily as tyrannical and barbaric as Saddam. Even Kuwait whom he previously invaded knew he was not a current threat to the region. Questions remain about the timing of the invasion.

Had it not been for the sanctions, Saddam probably would have gone the same way as those mentioned above. This has been pointed out by some western commentators for years. Denis Halliday for example. But overthrow of the regime from within would not be acceptable either, because it would leave Iraqis in charge. What do you think the US would make of a soverign and democratic Iraq that nationalised its oil and allied with Iran ? Democracy has little to do with it, and you are right when you say it is about establishing US hegemony over Iraq. This is not the same as freedom for the Iraqi people.

In order to “nation build” succesfully, the US needs to administer the country for years, but it has no stomach to do this. No one objects to the removal of dictators and the spread of democracy and popular government. The trouble is that there is not much evidence to suggest that this can ever happen. They have already said they will leave as soon as the country is secure. As i’ve already mentioned, taking active resistance against their presence to be a gauge of the strength of their popular mandate, they have none, this was not the case in Germany and Japan. The main interest in control of the middle east and its oil, not freedom for the Iraqi people - that is a secondary concern (See above para). The objection therefore is to the nature of the invasion, an uninvited “kick the door” in affair which has created such hostility towards the US throughout Iraq and the arab world only a fool would say it has been a success (if the goal was to establish american support throughout the region by appearing to remove an unpopular dictator). All the problems stem from this, and the only solution now is to stay in the country for years even once the violence has ended. Who knows when this will be. What we can do is pin the blame for this mess squarely upon the unsolicited invasion.

Mr. Wood;

I am not sure how I can be ignoring or distorting your view when I use exact quotes. Perhaps it is the time frame, as West Germany of the 50s and 60s would roughly parallel Iraq of the 10s and 20s. What the Iraqi Street will think of American troops at that time is still speculative.

As to more substantive issues, my reading of history leads me to believe that the populations of Japan and Germany did, in fact, regard the USA as an imperial power. Certainly that was the case pre-WWII, when the USA had many overseas possessions (such as the Phillipines). Japan set up its Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere in direct emulation of America and Western European powers and the lack of such an empire by Germany was a major cause of resentment between WWI and WWII.

After WWII, the Allies sliced off a big chunk of Germany to give to Poland, and gave away East Prussia to the USSR. On top of the devastation of war, the border adjustment dumped literally millions of refugees in to a ruined Germany, with a death toll of 1-2 million. How could Germans not regard the USA as imperialist?

As for the difference in post-WWII Germany and Japan vs. Iraq, I have already mentioned one prominent theory. That is that there was little resistance (not none) because the former two countries had been devastated, their fighting forces crushed, one of them threatened by occupation by an even worse power, the other nuked and brought to the brink of complete economic collapse and mass famine. The USA made clear that we would engage in collective punishment, holding the entire nation responsible for any resistance. I ask again, should we have done / do the same in Iraq, or not? You harp on the difference but seem very unwilling to examine the actual causes. Seriously, should the USA have waged war on Iraq like it did on Germany and Japan in order to get the same post-war scenarios? That’s what I really want to know.

Other minor points —

• If we take the level of violence as representative of the feelings of the populace regarding the presence of the target of that violence, we would conclude that as much as the presence of American troops is hated, the presence of Iraqis is even more hated, as vastly more violence is aimed at Iraqis than American troops. Is that what you believe as well, or is that metric not a valid one?
• Iraq was the aggressor, as the invasion in 2003 was a direct result and response to the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. President Bush failed miserably to make this clear, yet it is true nonetheless. The state of war that existed in the Gulf War between the USA and Iraq did not end until after the invasion of Iraq.
• Shouldn’t Iraqis be even more thankful for the generosity of the USA after the invasion of Iraq? We are spending proportionately far more money there.
• I strongly recommend that you don’t ever tell an actual Iranian that Iran is a youthful nation. They consider modern Iran to be a direct continuation of Persia and therefore 2500 or more years old, far more ancient than any nation in Europe. Additionally, the fact that the Iran - Iraq war was recent means that there are lots of people in both nations who remember it and the brutality of it. You might also note it was fought because Iran and Iraq were the “foreign interfence to gain control of their region’s resources” with respect to each other.
• Not the “I question the timing” trope! President Bush made clear he was going to settle the score with the Iraqi Ba’ath before he was elected in 2000, it’s one of the reasons I voted for him. Of course, in doing so he was only following the official, bi-partisan foreign policy of the USA.
• It wasn’t the sanctions that prevented the native overthrow of the Iraqi Ba’ath, but the shameful failure of the USA to support the 1991 uprisings. The reasons for that are effectively the same as those you are arguing today (not because it would “leave the Iraqis in charge”), which is a major reason I have little respect for such arguments.
• How can you argue simultaneously the contradictory claims that
  • America “has no stomach for running Iraq” and “will leave as soon as the country is secure”
  • America wants to dominate and control Iraq with no local democracy
• The goal of the Iraqi invasion wasn’t to establish support for America by “appearing” to remove a dictator. The goal was to destabilize the region so that
  1. It was less of a danger to the USA
  2. Liberal democracy could start to spread (which is, in fact, occuring).
  3. The USA would have the strategic imperative, forcing its opponents to fight on the defensive

Annoying Old Guy,

It is inconceivable that the US would be able to conduct the same sort of war it conducted against Japan and Germany against Iraq. The US public would soon turn against the administration if they carpet bombed Iraqi cities. The reason for this is that the moral imperative to collectively punish the Iraqi people was simply is not there. The preceived noble values of the US are already being damaged world wide and internally, needlessly bombing the crap out of Iraq in order to terrify the population would have been a catastrophe. It also would not stop foreign support for insurgents, observe Vietnam where the US famously dropped more explosives in a month than they did in the entire second world war or whatever the statistic is. I do not agree that it was the method of the war that suppressed German resistance to US occupation, there was no resistance and if there had been you can bet that the Soviets would have supported them. The US media supported the war and fell over itself to applaud the altruistic love for democracy of the adminsitration whilst ignoring all the mass of evidence that wolfowitz et al. didn’t care about democracy. For the UK’s part Jack Straw released a dossier of Saddam’s crimes drawn almost entirely from the period of firm U.S.-British support of Saddam. That selective amnesia only can lead one to the concusion that morals and freedom for Iraqis drives these people seems to be lost on you.

The United States would never permit an independent Iraqi government to exist. Especially now that Washington has reserved the right to set up permanent military bases there, in the heart of the world’s greatest oil-producing region, and has imposed an economic regime that no sovereign country would accept, putting the country’s fate in the hands of Western corporations.

• America “has no stomach for running Iraqâ€? and “will leave as soon as the country is secureâ€?
• America wants to dominate and control Iraq with no local democracy

There is nothing contradictory about this. They want weak, pliable governments, parliamentary if possible, so long as they effectively rule. There is no need to commit vast numbers of troops to acheive this, it’s straight forward imperialism.

It wasn’t the sanctions that prevented the native overthrow of the Iraqi Ba’ath, but the shameful failure of the USA to support the 1991 uprisings. The reasons for that are effectively the same as those you are arguing today (not because it would “leave the Iraqis in charge�), which is a major reason I have little respect for such arguments.

Funnily enough the reason given for that “shameful failure” are exactly the same as the ones now, regional stability. If regional stablity was a reason not to intervene then, why do you have no respect for an argument that says regional stablity should be the primary concern now ? What on earth do you mean when you say the goal in Iraq was to “destablise” ?

Regarding the level of violence - stop trying to deny this is indicative of resentment to US presence. Polls show that most Iraqis want the US troops to leave and regard their presence as negative. So no - the fact that the violence also targets Iraqis is not a valid metric in this case. I’ll leave it yourself to verify the polls claims as I need to go home for today !

Mr. Wood:

What would you have done instead?

NB: there is no such thing as a null alternative.

Mr. Wood;

So, your view is that after fighting a 5 year global war, the Germans and Japanese accepted American occupation because they “did not regard the US as an imperial entity”, and not for any reason having to do with the conduct of the just concluded war? My disagreement with that is vast, but I will leave it be. One is left wondering, however, how a USA with imperial possessions in the pre-WWII era was not regarded as an imperial entity where the same USA without those possessions in the modern era is. A bit odd, wouldn’t you say?

needlessly bombing the crap out of Iraq in order to terrify the population would have been a catastrophe

It doesn’t seem to have been for the Caliphascists, according to you. Apparently, it’s simply an indication of resenting the presence of Americans that doesn’t affect Iraqi popular opinion, except possibly making Iraqis dislike the non-needlessly bombing Americans even more.

The United States would never permit an independent Iraqi government to exist

Contrary to every other post-WWII American occupation? Surely such a claim, contradicting the historical record as it does, requires at least a little bit of evidence. This is, to me, a classic example of anti-Americanism, where motives are presumed without and in this case against evidence, simply because the USA is involved.

Especially now that Washington has reserved the right to set up permanent military bases there

You mean like the permanent military bases in Japan, South Korea, Germany, and the UK? Is that the reason those nations so slavishly follow the American line? Here I thought PM Blair was simply President Bush’s poodle, now I find out that he was actually scared for the safety of Britons because of these permanent American military bases. Perhaps you all need to fire up a “resistance” like that in Iraq, slaughtering your fellow citizens to demonstrate your resentment of the American presence. That would be ludicrous, you say? Hmmmmm…

If regional stablity was a reason not to intervene then, why do you have no respect for an argument that says regional stablity should be the primary concern now?

Because we have seen the results of such a policy, and they were terrible. I simply don’t have respect for arguments of the form “we did this before, it was a massive failure, we should do it again”. I thought it was stupid then, with hindsight I now know it was stupid.

the fact that the violence also targets Iraqis is not a valid metric in this case

I am the one arguing that it’s not a valid metric. Your argument, as I understand it, is that it is a valid metric, but only when directed at Americans. Otherwise it doesn’t count, for no apparent or stated reason. Seems like a rather dubious post-facto rationalization to me.

As for the polls, every one I have seen indicates that the Iraqis want Americans to leave, just not yet. I would say that they now have an elected government to make such decisions, but you’ve clearly decided that it’s illegitimate a priori, so I won’t bother.

what’s fun to do, is read the responses to wood (and his ilk) without reading what prompted them. more fun certainly than reading regurgitated talking points from leftist central.

Of all Mr Wood’s self-contradictory statements, of which there are many, this is my favourite:

“No one objects to the removal of dictators and the spread of democracy and popular government.”

Contrary to every other post-WWII American occupation? Surely such a claim, contradicting the historical record as it does, requires at least a little bit of evidence. This is, to me, a classic example of anti-Americanism, where motives are presumed without and in this case against evidence, simply because the USA is involved.

It’s pretty hard to imagine that they would allow a real voice to the Shi’ite majority, which is likely to join the rest of the region in trying to establish closer relations with Iran, the last thing the Bushites or infact you for that matter would want. Can you see that being allowed to happen ? It’s not anti-american, all imperial powers are the same. As for your claim about “every post-WWII American occupation” being to create conditions of freedom for the country under attack, first ponder the evident contradictions of such a doctrine, then ask what about Haiti ?

and not for any reason having to do with the conduct of the just concluded war? My disagreement with that is vast, but I will leave it be

You the cheek to call me anti-american yet seem to be advocating Nazi or Stalinist type mass slaughter as a valid military tactic in Iraq. Americans would never tolerate such britality in their name. At least you might, but the majority of sensible ones would not.

This was all tested in Vietnam where practically everything apart from nuking the place was attempted, untold amounts of ordnance was dropped, chemical weapons - the works. No one really knows to this day how many Vietnamese were killed or have since died as a result of all this. Of course this remains a bone of contention to the right who cannot accept the limitations of modern warfare. The Soviet Union who had no problem with mass murder on an unimaginable scale could not occupy Afghanistan succesfully. How do you explain all this ? Or the fact that if there was a German resistance the Soviets would have armed and supported them ? In the cold war climate resistance groups had never had it so good when it came to securing support from super powers. You make no attempt to address these issues, and merely trot out the same line again. Until you answer these points how do you expect me to agree with your assertion that the more brutal the war, the less the people will resist occupation ?

As for the polls, every one I have seen indicates that the Iraqis want Americans to leave,

Clearly you don’t look at many polls then.

You mean like the permanent military bases in Japan, South Korea, Germany, and the UK? Is that the reason those nations so slavishly follow the American line? Here I thought PM Blair was simply President Bush’s poodle

Japan and Germany are not “sovereign” in the sense that they are not allowed to maintain or deploy large armed forces. You ignore I see the main point which is about putting the countries resources at the control of western coroporations. What do you think of this ? Amongst the Iraqi Oil Ministry staff there’s a universal belief that the major U.S. companies will win the lion’s share of contracts. Paul Wolfowitz suggested in 2002 that the US should sieze the Iraqi oil fields. Can you explain why PSA’s became the Future of Iraq Project’s recommendation for the fledgling Iraqi government regarding extraction of Iraqi oil ?

Of all Mr Wood’s self-contradictory statements, of which there are many, this is my favourite:

“No one objects to the removal of dictators and the spread of democracy and popular government.�

Clearly I meant no sensible commentator would contend that such a goal was lamentable.

As for the polls, every one I have seen indicates that the Iraqis want Americans to leave, just not yet.

Clearly you don’t look at many polls then. Many polls show clearly that they want them out immediately.

Mr Wood:

I’m sure no sensible commentator would.

But now that you’ve got your scattergun of general complaints about the USA off your chest, can you tell us why you opposed the removal of a dictator and the spread of democracy in this particular instance?

Logically, your answer should include your answer to Jeff’s question (but I’ll wager it won’t).

cjm;

I rate Mr. Wood’s arguments well above average. I have found myself having to think carefully about my answers.

Mr. Wood;

Before I launch in to yet another attack, I would like to thank you for taking the time and effort to engage in an actual discussion of the issue.

It’s pretty hard to imagine that they would allow a real voice to the Shi’ite majority

You have moved from “never” to “hard to imagine” — excellent progress. I find it hard to imagine the USA doing anything else, given the domestic political situation, but such differences of opinion make the world an interesting place. We shall see.

As for Haiti, the USA keeps trying to leave, but gets pushed back in by world opinion. It may be that Iraq ends up that way as well, but if so it we would still have changed a dangerous regime in to an irrelevant one. If if the situation is hopeless, best to find out as early as possible.

You the cheek to call me anti-american yet seem to be advocating Nazi or Stalinist type mass slaughter as a valid military tactic in Iraq. Americans would never tolerate such britality in their name.

I have at all times discussed actions actually done by the USA, and now you call those “Nazi or Stalinist type mass slaughter”. Why would that make me think of anti-Americanism? (I will forebear to discuss Bomber Command’s “give it back to Jerry” attitude on the matter)

Your claim that “Americans would never tolerate such brutality in their name” is laughable because Americans did exactly that, in fact they cheered it on. And finally, I am not advocating such tactics — I accept that there is much more post-war violence because they weren’t used. In real life, actions have consequences. One may prefer the less total style of war now enaged in by the Anglosphere, but it comes at a price. That is what you seem unwilling to accept.

This was all tested in Vietnam where practically everything apart from nuking the place was attempted

Hardly. When was the North invaded? Answering that question effectively destroys your point. I would also note what was really tested in Vietnam was the “proportionate response” concept, not war as had been fought over the previous century or two, despite the tonnage of ordnance. That means that if it’s a valid analogy (doubtful), it supports my view, not yours.

The Soviet Union who had no problem with mass murder on an unimaginable scale could not occupy Afghanistan succesfully.

The Afghanistan resistance was supported by an opponent of the USSR that had better military technology and vastly more wealth. There’s a good post waiting to be written about the similarities and differences, the big one being that in the current conflict, the supporters of the “resistance” are the ones whose economies are in danger of collapse.

Or the fact that if there was a German resistance the Soviets would have armed and supported them?

My thesis is that there was very little German resistance because of the devastation of the war and therefore the availability of Soviet funding was irrelevant.

Japan and Germany are not “sovereign� in the sense that they are not allowed to maintain or deploy large armed forces.

Not true. Japan has a large military, as does Germany. It is also the case that Germany is allowed to deploy its armed forces, it has simply found it politically expedient to not do so. As for Japan, they have been able to change their constitution in that regard for decades, but as with Germany, have found it politically expedient to not do so (in Japan’s case, not just because it lets them evade responsibility but because there remains a lot of ill will in South East Asia about Japanese atrocities in WWII).

You ignore I see the main point which is about putting the countries resources at the control of western coroporations. What do you think of this?

I think it’s a silly Left-speak trope used primarily for moral preening at the expense of the continued immiseration of third world economies.

Amongst the Iraqi Oil Ministry staff there’s a universal belief that the major U.S. companies will win the lion’s share of contracts.

And instead one might expect them to be won by …? Is it simply not possible the major American companies are a good choice, therefore their selection can only be due to perfidity?

I suspect PSAs were recommended because in the Middle East, foreign expertise is generally needed to run oil fields (note that Libya was so desperate to get such American investment that it gave up its WMD program to do so). It would also tie America’s interests with Iraq, creating the kind of defense shield that has been of such enormous benefit to other nations such as Japan, South Korea, and Germany. There was likely the desire to do things rapidly, which requires a lot of capital and PSAs were a good way of getting that capital to flow in to Iraq. What’s the alternative, Iranian style autarky that has seen its economy shrink by half over the last few decades?

You all are doing an admirable job, so I’ll just clean up a few loose odds and ends.

1. The Bush Doctrine is one of preventative war, not pre-emptive war. The difference is that a pre-emptive war is a war waged in order to pre-empt the enemy’s impending attack. A preventative war is waged before the enemy has begun to gather his forces to attack. The Administration agreed that Iraq was not in 2003 able to attack the US. They said that we should go in and take out the Ba’athist government before it gained the ability to attack us.

2. The lack of WMDs makes the case for invasion more pressing. If we can’t even know what’s going on in Iraq, a nation with limited sovereignty where we have a right of inspection, then we can’t know what’s going on in any other nation. Preventative war is better than waiting to be attacked, which is the precise lesson of 9/11.

3. Though Saddam did not have WMDs, that does not make the case for invasion any weaker. The inspectors could not find WMDs that we knew he had from previous inspections. The Iraqis apparently destroyed their WMDs without having kept any records or telling the inspectors, as they were required to do by the UN. That was a violation of the agreements ending the Gulf War just a much as if they had kept up their nuclear program.

4. Although none of Saddam’s WMD programs were active, the Iraqis went out of their way to keep the scientists involved in those programs, and maintain their records. They were intent on reconstituting the WMD programs once the sanctions were lifted. Better to prevent that now.

5. “Saddam was a secularist.” Odd sort of secularist: he added a verse from the Koran to the Iraqi flag, built a huge mosque and was having a copy of the Koran written in his own blood. The best that can be said here is that he was willing to do whatever it took, including making common cause with religious fanatics, to stay in power. Regardless of whether his motivation was religious, he saw himself as a world historic figure destined to unite the Arab “nation.”

6. The insurgency consists of 10,000 to 15,000 Iraqis, along with maybe 10,000 foreigners. They kill many more Iraqis than they do Americans, as they try to create a civil war.

7. The easiest way for us to get Iraqi oil pumping again would have been to remove the sanctions. Of course, the oil argument is the perfect anti-American argument: we’re evil no matter what we do. If we get the oil flowing, we’re in it for cheap oil. If we don’t get the oil flowing, then we’re in it for expensive oil and windfall profits for the oil companies.

8. It is delusional to think that Saddam organized an efficient response to the sanctions. The Kurds, who were able, thanks to the US and UK, to organize themselves independently of Baghdad, operated under exactly the same sanction regime but suffered much less. The Ba’athists, on the other hand, diverted “oil for food” money to grandiose construction projects and trying to buy their way out from under the sanction regime.

I have never understood the mindset of those who argue it is a violation of international law and/or immoral to invade a country that boasts of having WMD’s and every intention of using them on the basis that they were lying. I wonder if Mr. Wood holds that the sanctions against North Korea are only legitimate if they are telling the truth about that test.

Also, everybody forgets the ultimatum. If Saddam and his sons had quit, there presumably would have been no invasion.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my comments too. It is nice not to be castigated. I will admit that the case for the invasion is well crafted and even compelling, but I’m not swayed by it yet.

The case for the war was without doubt “sexed up” and the decision to invade had been made long before. As one commentator said, the only thing that would probably have prevented an invasion was Saddam stepping aside, given the mans obvious megalomania, this was never going to happen. The UN appointed Hans Blix, a distinguished man who was shamefully discredited and smeared as his evidence was not what the US was looking for. Where are all the hawks now who said he was just buying saddam time and his appointment was a mistake ? He was right.

The question of whether Saddam was a threat to regional stablity also carries with it the assumption that he wanted to attack his neighbours. After his experience in Kuwait and in Iran, which had disastrous results, and considering his enthusiastic efforts at mending fences with his neighbors including Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and his calls for Muslim and Arab unity that was an unlikely scenario.

All of this coupled with the exteremley tenous links between al-Qaida and the Saddam regieme meant that a shift in focus was neccasarry. Suddenly the war is about deomcratisation and freedom, surely against these noble goals no one can argue ? Anyone would have to admit that the actual reasons oficially given for the invasion were nebulous and subject to change. To me, they did not represent a convincing case. The only justification that can have any credibility is the one about freedom, and the removal of Saddam Hussein.

But we have no justification to punish the innocent civilians of any country simply because we don’t like, in this case, a man who was once a friend and ally to the United States. Donald Rumsfeld visited Iraq in 1983 spoke with Saddam Hussein, asked for an exchange of ambassadors. They know each other! Why can’t Rumsfeld go back and reopen this dialogue and begin to understand what makes Iraq tick and help to create an atmosphere in the Middle East of peace.

I think it’s a silly Left-speak trope used primarily for moral preening at the expense of the continued immiseration of third world economies.

Amongst the Iraqi Oil Ministry staff there’s a universal belief that the major U.S. companies will win the lion’s share of contracts.

And instead one might expect them to be won by …? Is it simply not possible the major American companies are a good choice, therefore their selection can only be due to perfidity?

It’s well known that Iran once had a democracy, but back then the US and UK decided that oil was more important than democracy. Fair enough, it was while ago, but the record in the ME of the west is pure imperialism, if you looked at all this from an arab perspective it’s dificult to regard this war as anything else.

In February of 2001, just weeks after Bush was sworn in, the same energy executives that had been lobbying for Saddam’s ousting gathered at the White House to participate in Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force. Although Cheney would go all the way to the Supreme Court to keep what happened at those meetings a secret, we do know a few things, thanks to documents obtained by the conservative legal group JudicialWatch.

A map of Iraq and an accompanying list of “Iraq oil foreign suitors” were the centre of discussion. . The list of suitors revealed that dozens of companies from 30 countries but not the United States were either in discussions over or in direct negotiations for rights to some of the best remaining oilfields on earth.

It’s not hard to surmise how the participants in these meetings felt about this situation. There is little doubt, I think, that the US do not like a few tin pot regiemes in the middle east holding all the trump cards. I think it is fairly obvious that had Saddam Hussein been the dictator of Chad, there would have been no invasion. Everyone knows this is true, as much as they shout about the moral imperitive for his removal. Historically the US and UK have supported nasty regiemes all over the world when it’s suited, and they still do.

All of this needs to be viewed in the context of the declining availabilty of oil. The importance of oil cannot be overstated to our economy, with China and India and other nations coming to the table, global demand for oil is set to rise by 60% by 2020. At current production rates by that time 83% of world oil reserves will be in the hands of middle eastern countries. Iraq with it’s large proven reserves and suspected unproven reserves, is going to be of huge strategic importance.

Anyway, what is interesting is that 100 years ago the british would have had no problem with fighting a war to gain vital strategic resources. Historically this is what most action in the middle east by the west has really been about, strategic interests. Nowadays, and particularly in the US which has always opposed imperalism, this is not a good enough reason to convince the elecotrate to go to war, so other reasons need to be found.

So to sum up - my opposition is two fold : Firstly the reasons given for the invasion were not convincing, and not in my opinion the real reason for the war. Secondly the war was a bad idea because it will inevitably result in the death of many more Iraqis who have already had a shitty time of it. An unsolicited invasion will always appear to the rest of the world as naked aggression, it was obvious that this would push the other arab countries closer to Iran, and the tin pot ones that the US props up are more ripe then ever for revolution due to the gross mismatch between their governments opinions and those of the populations.

Sir, I greatly admire your Glenties.

Mr. Wood;

I won’t respond to all your points, but you repeat two things that we hear often from the left, and I wonder whether most of you have thought through the implications of what you are saying:

“the only thing that would probably have prevented an invasion was Saddam stepping aside, given the mans obvious megalomania, this was never going to happen”.

“But we have no justification to punish the innocent civilians of any country simply because we don’t like, in this case, a man who was once a friend and ally to the United States”.

In the first place, it is absurd to categorize Hussein as a former friend and ally of the U.S. In 2003, the Swedish Institute for Peace and Security, no fan of the U.S., published extensive data showing that over a twenty year period, Hussein got 1% of his arms from the U.S. and 87% from France, China and Russia. Whatever support he got during the Iran/Iraq war was very minor, begrudged, unenthusiastic and a function of the realism so many pine for today as an antidote to those wicked, moralizing neocons. But even if there was some truth to it, which there isn’t, what are you saying? Good relations for a time gives a lifetime free pass to invade, threaten, try to assassinate U.S. presidents, etc. Surely your very best case is that the U.S. made a mistake long ago, not that it became immoral to oppose Hussein in 2003 because he was sold arms in 1982.

But the real problem is your juxtaposition of the two sentences. As far as I can tell, they add up to a statement that the U.S. or the West or whatever must suffer dangerous and destabilizing meglomaniacs and are responsible for obtaining perfect strategic knowledge behind the threats, secrecy, terror and bravado, because the citizens are “innocent” and might get hurt. Presumably this argument would stay the same even if the Security Council had approved the invasion—I don’t think even the fiercest UN supporter would declare it to be the source of objective morality. So, tell us, under what conditions would you see an invasion as justifiable? Must he nuke someone first? There are lots of “innocent citizens” in North Korea, most of them willing to die for Kim Il-Jong at a moment’s notice, even though he is intentionally starving them all. With you in charge, I think he would feel very safe.

Let me suggest that there is a cultural or even racial patronizing implicit in your argument. Were the Iraqis any more “innocent” than the Serbs or the Germans in WW11? Why are they innocent? Because they weren’t members of Hussein’s security service or Republican Guard? Because they secretly hated him even though they did his bidding? C’mon, all civilian populations in all wars are innocent in the sense you mean and always have been. Yours is the argument of the ideological pacifist. If that is what you are, fine, but it is disingenuous to craft criticisms of a particular war based upon particular circumstances if what you really believe is that all war is hell and can never be justified.

Also, Blix was an ideologue determined to prove that international law could tame Hussein and bring freedom and prosperity to Iraqis. He was not going to countenance any challenge to that belief whatever the evidence. He was heir to a long line of Swedish diplomatic thinking that makes them experts at crafting inspiring speeches and useless in the face of dictators. And they share something with us Canadians—an undying belief that the world would be forever safe if only everybody let them mediate all our differences. There is no need for you to tell Mr. Blix how wonderful and noble he was. Believe me, he knows it well.

Peter Burnet,

Your arrogance is astounding. You accuse hans blix of being an “idealogue” yet here you are, when his findings have been vindicated, prattling on about how we shoudln’t have waited until saddam nuked someone. Whatever you may think of him, doesn’t matter - he was right, and you were wrong. There were no WMD.

I explained at length why I thought that claims that saddam hussein was plotting to invade any neighbouring country were highly unlikely. You ignore this and instead trumpet on about some ludicrous non existant nuclear threat he supposedly posed to his neighbours. Even kuwait much touted by idiots like you did not regard saddam as a threat any more, yet thanks to the nonsensical scaremongering of the right, suddenly Iraq posed the biggest threat to world security there was. The country had been under sanctions for 12 years, his military was crippled, there were no weapons of mass destruction, he was making peace with his neighbours and speaking of arab unity. You were fundamentally wrong about all of this. As i sad, the only justifcation that could be countentanced, is the removal of a dictator.

But even if there was some truth to it, which there isn’t, what are you saying?

Groan. There is plenty of truth to it. You may believe that noble and just cause of the bush administration, you may choose to ignore that 15 years previously the US were prepared to veto security council resolutions condemning Iraq for using chemical weapons, you may choose to ignore that the only arab democracy that there was ousted by the US and UK for having the temerity to demand more money for their oil, but the rest of the world and particularly the arab world does not. The war has made the world less safe and has increased hatred of the US in the arab world, this is not a good thing and not the aim of the war. That is what I’m saying. The US is so hated in the arab world and around the world in general, that however noble their aims, no one believes them.

I withdraw my admiration.

Mr Wood: why don’t you go back and read your first two comments, and then contrast them with the ever-so modest ‘conclusion’ in your penultimate one. Getting from the former to the latter required a truly expert application of Glenties.

But now you’ve spoiled it all by returning to scattergun lunacy in the last.

Brit,

I’ve made clear why I think the war was lunacy. I’ve tried to explain why I don’t believe the reasons for the war. And why the only sensible justifcation is insufficient. You’ll have to explain why

2) If you were an Iraqi would you trust the US when it invaded your country, when it says it’s mostly for the benefit of the Iraqi people ? The US gave support for Saddam Hussein before, why should they be trusted now supposing asn an Iraqi you wanted rid of Saddam ?

followed by

The US is so hated in the arab world and around the world in general, that however noble their aims, no one believes them. is contradictory.

What you call “scattergun” is an attempt to impress on amnesiacs like you why no one, particularly arabs, believes the altruistic aims of liberation. I couldn’t give a piss whether you respect me or not, if that’s what you call an insult.…

And quit with the scottish slang it’s not smart.

Mr. Wood;

I will admit that the case for the invasion is well crafted and even compelling, but I’m not swayed by it yet.

I think that’s an intellectually defensible position. Such decisions are always fraught with unknowns and unknowables, and reasonable people can come to different conclusions. I have never claimed that the contra case is a priori wrong, or cannot be held by people of good faith.

The case for the war was without doubt “sexed up” and the decision to invade had been made long before.

Certainly. But when hasn’t it been? Former President Franklin Roosevelt made the decision to fight in WWII long before the attack on Pearl Harbor. As I noted earlier, I voted for then candidate Bush in 2000 because I expected him to actively pursue regime change in Iraq, even if it meant an invasion. One could argue that the decision was made back in 1998 under former President Clinton.

The question of whether Saddam was a threat to regional stability

Ah, I have failed to be clear. My claim is that it is the USA that is the threat to regional stability and I support that. I considered the status quo pre-invasion to be a long term threat to American national interests, therefore its destabilization was and is a good thing. For what you say you are concerned with, let me ask — what hope of freedom was there in stability?

Ba’athist Iraq was never a friend and ally of the USA, simply a convenience. It was quite analogous to the relationship with the USSR during WWII — do you think that, given that cooperation, opposing Soviet Communism during the Cold War was wrong? Rumsfeld could no more have “reopened a dialogue” with Hussein than Eisenhower could have with Stalin.

same energy executives that had been lobbying for Saddam’s ousting

We have an extremely different memory of that era. I remember the energy executives lobbying for dropping the sanctions, not ousting the Ba’ath. In terms of energy company revenues, regime change was stupid. Dropping the sanctions and sucking up to Hussein was the best option.

But, I am confused — was the invasion about oil, or “simply because we don’t like, in this case, a man who was once a friend and ally”?

I don’t deny that access to oil was a significant factor in the invasion. As I have stated repeatedly, I support the national security interests of the USA and oil is important in that calculation.

However, as has been noted, if oil were the primary concern, the USA would have dropped the sanctions and bought from the Ba’ath. You claim that having been whupped in Iran and Kuwait, Hussein wouldn’t have tried any more foreign adventures. Moreover, wasn’t he a “friend and ally” of the USA, someone Donald Rumsfeld knew personally? Why not keep him on? Clearly, there must have been some other, non-oil related motive. What do you suppose that was?⁵

With regard to your two final points, I understand them but I don’t agree with them. I think I have laid out the reasons for that, so I won’t belabor the point.

---

⁵ This is one of the fundamental flaws of the scatter gun accusation technique. If you don’t think through the implications of your claims, you end up easily hoisted on the petard of the internal contradictions of the various accusations. It is simply not possible to reconcile the claims of Saddam Hussein being buddies with the USA and the war being about access to oil.

Mr Wood:

It’s not Scottish, it’s Douglas Adams, who was born in Cambridge. I’ve helpfully provided a link above. (Though since it took very little time for you to resort to name-calling and mild swearing, shouldn’t that say “I couldn’t give a pish”?)

But to the matter in hand: it’s scattergun because obscuring your central argument are a whole load of complaints about oil companies and the actions of previous US administrations and irrelevant and highly debatable claims about what various people might or might not believe about the US and liberation.

That stuff really doesn’t interest me since it comes under the heading “anti-American leftist cant”. I’ve heard it all, and worse, many times before from people both far more and far less eloquent than you, and I didn’t believe any of it the first time. By the millionth time it’s just white noise.

Anyways, what I want to know is why you opposed this particular liberation. Your answer should, as Jeff Guinn noted above, include a realistic description of the position of all relevent parties prior to the invasion, with a practical alternative to the removal of Saddam Hussein by force, and reasons why such would be preferable (note: please don’t mention oil in your answer, since you already ruled that out in your own two-part conclusion above.)

We can agree to disagree. But first I’d like to clear a few things up. If you accept that the war was planned and decided upon long before the invasion, then do you agree that the pre war waffling about WMD and links to al-Qaeda was insulting to the public ?

If you accept the definition of “ally” as someone whom is working with you to acheive a common goal, then Iraq and the USSR were both at one time, allies of the US. The US, UK, and USSR were referred to as part of the allied powers during the war. I didn’t say they were friends or that Rumsfeld was friends with saddam either.

It is simply not possible to reconcile the claims of Saddam Hussein being buddies with the USA and the war being about access to oil.

I didn’t say he was still buddies with the USA, clearly he was not. But the fact he was “buddies” of sorts in the past (the US did want to “upgrade” relations with Iraq and didn’t see chemical weapons use as an obstacle to this) and the fact you openly admit that the US would use whoever it needs to to get what it wants was part of a larger point about the trust that arabs and particularly Iraqis have in the US. The fact they were allies of sorts when it suited the US is compelling evidence that the US is not really on the moral crusade some people claim it is, that’s the point about that.

Why not keep him on? Clearly, there must have been some other, non-oil related motive. What do you suppose that was?

It’s not clear at all, following the 1st gulf war, and with the rising demand for oil from emerging powers that i talked about a few posts back, Saddam would not sell his oil willingly to the US when other countries would be clamouring for it (as they will be), hence as you say the status quo was not an option. He had to go in order for the US to be sure it would get Iraqi oil in the future. I hope this clears up the perceived contradictions.

(Mr Wood

In addition, I would not expect too prizes for penetration if my private speculation that you believe Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 to be a documentary work of significant stature, turned out in fact to be true.

Therefore, I offer this as a freebie, to keep you amused while you re-load your debating blunderbuss for future shooting-matches.

Enjoy, and please: don’t thank me, even in your own inimitable style. Duty is its own reward.)

Brit,

To use the Bertrand Russell approach, why don’t you tell me why the war was neccesary instead of me telling you that the situation in Iraq today is neither helping nor in my mind justifiable with regard to the US’s long term strategic goal of securing access to middle east oil. As such it does not consitute a “liberation” and it should be pretty apparent that I’m opposed to it on those grounds.

Clearly I have not been very eloquent if you didn’t understand that. In this respect it would be impossible to give an answer that did not make mention of “oil”. If you wish to assert that claiming the US is hated throughout the arab world is “highly debatable” you can do so, but without sufficient evidence to the contrary I’ll continue to hold that as a result of the war, arab hositility towards the US is higher than ever, and the undemocratic regiemes that the US helps prop up are under more pressure.

to dismiss the historical reasons for arab hostility towards western powers as “white noise” is nothing more than pathetic. The timeline for Arab - US relations did not begin when GWB came to power and what sort of understanding can someone hope to have of the situation if they ignore the historical context ? Please explain why it’s irrelevant.

I did say “friends” after all, apologies Annoying Old Guy - well we wont argue about the semantics of words here - but the relationship was quite well established, and the US were at the time keen to upgrade relations. I didn’t mean to imply that rumsfeld was personally a friend of saddam hussein. I base all of this info on stuff from the NSA - there’s a lot of info in there about the relationship between saddam and the US.

Mr. Wood;

If you accept that the war was planned and decided upon long before the invasion, then do you agree that the pre war waffling about WMD and links to al-Qaeda was insulting to the public?

No. I don’t think there was “waffling” about WMD. I think it was the general concensus at the time that the Iraqi Ba’ath had or were reasonably likely to acquire WMD. I think the evidence is clear that there were links between Ba’athist Iraq and Al-Qaeda (which, I will note, is quite distinct from Ba’athist support for any specific Al Qaeda operation). However, Al Qaeda is an epiphenomenon of WWIV, not a fundamental. The USA is at war with Caliphascist ideology and the Iraqi Ba’ath were heavily involved in that. The precise details of Al Qaeda / Ba’ath interaction aren’t important. And as Mr. Cohen pointed out, the concept of preventative war, war before there is a direct threat, was explicitly discussed before the invasion.

I think a major difference here is that I see the invasion of Iraq as one campaign in a larger war and hold its justification in that context. I don’t concern myself with whether it was justifiable in and of itself, just as one need not debate the isolated justification for invading North Africa during WWII.

I didn’t say they [USA, Saddam Hussein] were friends

Actually, you did —

[Saddam Hussein] a man who was once a friend and ally to the United States [emphasis added]

and also

Donald Rumsfeld visited Iraq in 1983 spoke with Saddam Hussein, asked for an exchange of ambassadors. They know each other! [emphasis added]

which precisely is what I claimed you said.

Another drawback of the scatter gun approach.

you openly admit that the US would use whoever it needs to to get what it wants

I have admitted no such thing. In contrast, I have repeatedly stated that concerns about such actions are important to formulating good foreign policy.

As for Iraqi trust, I expect them to trust the USA because it’s the only viable option for them. This is a key point and why some of the other commentors are harping on alternatives. You can’t grasp this point without looking at those.

If instead the Iraqis choose to remain mired in the past, then that’s exactly what they’ll be, mired in their past of brutality and oppression.

It’s not clear at all, following the 1st gulf war, and with the rising demand for oil from emerging powers that i talked about a few posts back, Saddam would not sell his oil willingly to the US when other countries would be clamouring for it

Irrelevant. This is a point many miss, which is that oil is fungible. It doesn’t matter to whom the oil is sold, only that it is, because there is effectively only one world wide price for oil. If Iraq sells oil, the price goes down for everyone. If it doesn’t, the price goes up for everyone. Because of Iraq’s economic situation, the Iraqi Ba’ath would have had to sell oil.

what is interesting is that 100 years ago the british would have had no problem with fighting a war to gain vital strategic resources. Historically this is what most action in the middle east by the west has really been about, strategic interests. Nowadays, and particularly in the US which has always opposed imperalism, this is not a good enough reason to convince the elecotrate to go to war, so other reasons need to be found.

It certainly is an interesting point. Perhaps I am too mired in the past myself and so don’t see my views on national interests as atypical. I think that other reasons have emerged, rather than “been found”, as we have come to a deeper understanding of what is truly in the national interest.

However, I had to chuckle at the claim “the USA has always opposed imperialism”. You mean such as when it took over big chunks of the Spanish Empire? Or siezed chunks of Mexico by war and threat of war? And since you’re in the UK, let me just say 54°40' or Fight!

Mr Wood:

why don’t you tell me why the war was neccesary

Because David Cohen and AOG have already done so, and better than I could, above - and it would be tedious to repeat their points. And to be even more specific, the reason I didn’t oppose the war, or join the Stop the War march in London for example, is that it didn’t appear obvious to me that removing a genocidal dictator from power by force and replacing him with a liberal democracy was worse than maintaining the status quo of ineffective resolutions and mutually-corrupting sanctions.

Clearly I have not been very eloquent if you didn’t understand that.

Forgive me. The problem isn’t a lack of eloquence. You make your points very eloquently. The problem is that one half of your eloquent points directly contradict the other half. So it is a lack of coherence rather than eloquence that is the root of my lack of understanding…

…the situation in Iraq today is neither helping nor in my mind justifiable with regard to the US’s long term strategic goal of securing access to middle east oil. As such it does not consitute a “liberationâ€? and it should be pretty apparent that I’m opposed to it on those grounds.

…is a good example. So now you don’t think the invasion was a good idea because it was not sufficiently effective in securing US access to middle east oil, which is actually a laudable goal?

Here’s the rub:

You opposed the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam, correct? Therefore you believed, before the invasion, that there was a preferable alternative to invading Iraq, which might have been maintaining the status quo, or it might have been something else (as yet unnamed).

I want you to explain your alternative, and further, explain why you believed it was preferable.

Your attack on US policy regarding oil in the middle east explains why you don’t like the US policy regarding oil in the middle east. It does not explain if and why there was a preferable alternative to the invasion.

Your attack on previous US administrations’ foreign policies regarding Iraq and Iran explains why you don’t like those previous administrations’ policies regarding Iraq and Iran. It does not explain if and why there was a preferable alternative to the invasion.

Your criticisms of the presentation of the reasons for war by Blair and Bush explains why you are cynical about the presentation of the reasons for war by Blair and Bush. It does not explain if and why there was a preferable alternative to the invasion.

Do you see what I’m getting at? Your approach is scattergun: there is so much smoke and dust flying out of your blunderbuss that we can’t see the actual missiles.

Mr. Wood:

To Mr. Burnet you said Even kuwait much touted by idiots like you …

Having sparred with Mr. Burnet for quite some time, I can assure you he is idiocy’s direct antithesis — you owe him an apology for a completely out of line ad hominem.

AOG’s point above about the fungibility of oil lept off the screen at me, also. Your inability to grasp this fundamental aspect of the commodities market should raise red flags about the soundness of the rest of your analysis.

I had previously asked that you supply an alternate course of action taking into account the state of play prior to March 2003. You have utterly failed to respond, making a mockery of your position: there is no such thing as a null alternative, yet that is what you are defending.

So please put yourself in the position of defending something, instead of the absence of anything.

Given that Saddam himself believed he had WMD, his cynical use of the sanctions regime to inflame Arab public opinion, the concerted undermining of the sanctions by the French and Russians, further corrupting the UN (a feat hitherto deemed impossible), Saddam’s intentions in the event the sanctions were lifted, the jihadist attitude that the US is too decadent to fight (a key element in the 9/11 attacks), etc

What would you have done instead?

I have yet to hear a cogent argument for an alternative course of action from anyone in the MAL, and you are continuing that tradition.

Also, I suspect that you, and certainly most of what passes for the MAL, need to learn why pacifism is self-defeating.

I’d like to see some backup for the proposition that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia didn’t see post-sanctions Iraq as a threat. I have to admit to skepticism. AQ’s animating animus is that US troops are stationed within the borders of SA. They are there at the request of SA to guard against Iraq. If SA wasn’t worried about Iraq, they could have spared us all a lot of trouble by letting our troops leave.

Kuwait, similarly, was thrilled by the invasion and was eager to be the jumping off point.

The saga of Donald Rumsfeld, Saddam and chemical weapon use is somewhat complex, but not problematic for us. Obviously, three years after the hostage crisis, the US was intereste