A horrible connection here in Martinborough, New Zealand. I’ll leave this thread here for you all to discuss Iraq, Bush’s Tuesday speech, etc.
I have reams of things I’ve written about NZ on my laptop but I can’t transfer it onto this hotel computer which doesn’t appear to have a spare USB port for my thumbstick. Grrr.
I’ll do what I can connection-wise over the next few days. But I’ll be home in Virginia on July 3 so normal posting on JWN will definitely resume then… maybe before.
112 thoughts on “Iraq open thread #5”
Comments are closed.
I can do no better than post the last bit of Gary Younge’s oped in today’s Guardian. As an expat Kiwi I’m keen for a report on the homeland Helena. It seems like it is about to enter an ugly phase politically.
“Until earlier this year, the White House had an easy-to-follow narrative for success on its own terms. When weapons of mass destruction were not found, it simply changed the story to fit the absence of facts. The final chapter then became the democratisation of the Arab world. First there would be a “handover” of power, then elections, all leading up to Iraqis regaining control of their own country. The carnage, in terms of human life, regional stability and international law, was dismissed as a price worth paying for the bigger picture. For a while, a majority of the American public bought it. But in recent months they have proved reluctant to wear it.
You can keep spinning just so long before you fall flat on your face. The administration’s insistence that things are on track and all it must do is stay the course is beginning to grate. US efforts to reshape the world through a policy of pre-emption have been buttressed by an attempt to remould reality through the power of assertion. Since Vice-President Dick Cheney claimed that the insurgency was “in its last throes” 77 American soldiers and about 600 Iraqi civilians have died. His tortured explanation, late last week, that “if you look at what the dictionary says about throes, it can still be a violent period”, adds insult to injury.
“We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue,” wrote George Orwell in his essay In Front of Your Nose. “And then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.”
my favorite Orwell:
“The ruling power is always faced with the question, “In such and such circumstances, what would you do?”, whereas the opposition is not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions… Moreover, anyone who starts out with a pessimistic, reactionary view of life tends to be justified by events”
“To abjure violence is a luxury which a delicate few enjoy only because others stand ready to do violence in their behalf.”
“Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist.”
Orwell Fan:
And what conclusion are you drawing from these quotes ? Taken out of context, they don’t mean anything.
1) They could have been put in the mouth of a negative hero, which Orwell doesn’t support.
2) They could be a reference to a particular context, but won’t make sense in the actual context.
George Orwell engaged himself in the Spanish civil war on the side of the POUM (a left party fighting against fascism). So this quote “Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist.” is fully understandable in the context of the Spanish civil war, where the Republicans had to defend the democracy against the Franquists.
The actual context in America is different : a bunch of irresponsible hawks invaded a far away country who wasn’t threatening anyone in the US and had become too weak to threaten any other country in the Gulf region. So, applied to the Iraq war, this quote justifies the guerilla war against the US occupation. Right ?
Woaw… Chapeau, Christiane !
Christiane:
The “Guerilla war against the US occupation” is exactly a fascist movement that is trying to oust democracy and install rule-by-terror and other Saddam-isms. Pacifism in the face of this offense against the stated wishes of the Iraqi people is indeed fascism: objective, subjective and otherwise.
Everyone who loves peace, freedom and democracy should rise up against this counter-revolution of head-choppers, jihadists and Baathists and bring it low. Remember, Christiane, these are people who would silence even your voice (with the sword) if given the chance.
Warren,
Every country attacked/invaded like Iraq has a right to defend itself against the invaders. That is part of the UN Chart. However that is also the only case when a war is allowed for any chart member, including the US. Thus in invading Iraq US has engaged herself in an illegal war and deserves sanctions for it.
Once the US occupation is thrown out, the Iraqi will have to sort among themselves how they want to be ruled. I hope that they will be able to negotiate pacifically, inspite of all the trouble the US has caused, but that’s strictly their business, not that of the US. Of course, every one also hope that the Iraqis will not have to suffer from another dictatorship like that of Saddam.
As long as I’m not meddling in their business, I don’t fear any harm from them. If they once get the peaceful country they deserve and open their country to foreign tourismus, I’d be happy to visit the numerous archeological treasures they have.
BTW, US is not bringing freedom, nor democracy to Iraq, only bombs, ruins, chaos and prisonners. And actually, the US military plans for more prisonners : she has just decided to extend prisons facilities for about 16’000 prisonners. Oh.. what ? I thought that would be a competence of the new Iraq’s “free” elected government. How comes the US has made this decision ?
“Once the US occupation is thrown out, the Iraqi will have to sort among themselves how they want to be ruled.”
Christiane,
I agree with your assessment that the US has engaged in an illegal war and that the individuals who led us into it should be held accountable, as well as whatever sanctions the US might be held liable for.
However, I think the current situation is more complex than your analysis would indicate. It is not the case that the insurgency is a single entity fighting the US occupation, nor is US withdrawal the sole political issue being fought over. Militant groups are not waiting for the US to withdraw so that all Iraqis can sit peacefully and organize their own politics. They are attempting to organize those politics now, using means open to them as a result of the instability created by the US mishandling of the ‘post-conflict’ situation.
Framing the matter as self-defense according to the UN charter also raises an interesting prospect: The US gained UN (and worldwide) support in its attack on the Taliban, because the Taliban harbored Al-Qaeda who had launched an attack on US soil. Does this mean that the US might not be legitimate in fighting the nationalist or Baathist factions, but might be legitimate in staying in Iraq to fight Zarqawi and the foreign jihadists … ?
Could someone please identify the corporate and capitalist elements of fascism as practised by the insurgency in Iraq?
windinthewhistlel, Christiane
US did many things signalling to IRAQI that they working against the will of the majority of Iraqi. These some examples
1) In the first days of Baghdad fall the mere of Baghdad (he put him self) of the closest friend to Ahmmad Aljalaby asked the Iraqi to come forward to build the civil services, he collected 4000 engineers and specialist to start the cleanup of the war miss, this guy put in jail and no one knows where he is till now, like Saddam way with his oppositions ( his wife asking and side to news paper she didn
The US military says it is expanding several Iraqi prisons, including Abu Ghraib jail in Baghdad, to cope with a sharp rise in detainees.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4628057.stm
On May 25 2004, GWB said in a speech to the Army War College that the United States would fund the building of a new prison system.
“America will fund the construction of a modern maximum-security prison.”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/250504_demolished.html
http://www.dawn.com/2004/05/26/top15.htm
Let’s see now…supposedly the U.S. “transferred sovereignty” and “handed over power” to Iraqis one year ago, and supposedly the “elected” government of Iraq is the one running the country. Yet, it is the U.S. that is holding at least 10,000 prisoners, and building more facilities to hold all the additional prisoners it plans to detain.
Isn’t there a slight disconnect here?
windinthewhistlel
“..also raises an interesting prospect: …but might be legitimate in staying in Iraq to fight Zarqawi and the foreign jihadists … ?”
Reminds me the Menendez brothers’ joke: “Your Honour, spare them, because these are orphans” (yeah, they killed their own parents).
The “Guerilla war against the US occupation” is exactly a fascist movement that is trying to oust democracy and install rule-by-terror and other Saddam-isms. Pacifism in the face of this offense against the stated wishes of the Iraqi people is indeed fascism: objective, subjective and otherwise. -WarrenW
Faiza (Iraqi blogger) said there are two components to the Iraqi resistance: nationalists fighting for their country, and the “faceless ones”. The last group is the ones who are terrorists, and she was not sure that the US CIA (or other state entity, like the Israeli’s Moussad) was not behind some of it (just like the US forces were behind such actions in Central America in the 1980’s). So, the first group is definately not fascist, just as US resistance against the Brits being in “our” country was not fascism, and a US struggle against any foreign troops on our soil would not be fascist.
The later group may want to install a Islamic regime like they had under the Taliban, or they may only be there because the US troops are there.
Any action build on lies and deceptions will not have a good outcome. And this war was based on a total pack of lies.
Andrew –
Yeah, it does have that flavor, doesn’t it? I’m not advocating the position, just trying to think about it. On the one hand, the US does have claim and precedent against al Qaeda under international law; on the other, the US has undermined its own position in the GWOT by launching an illegal war in Iraq, which was sold at least partially as a component of GWOT.
WarrenW –
Where the hell did fascism enter into this? You are talking about a specific political ideology; a nationalist movement is not automatically fascist. The tactics you point to are not ideologically bound, either; leftist, marxist, maoist, nationalist, white supremicist, salafiyah, or cultist insurrectionists are all equally capable of chopping heads and blowing things up. Or do you just mean the term as a general insult?
Susan –
I’m highly skeptical about the CIA or Mossad being behind the “faceless ones” in Iraq: it’s one of those intriguing conspiracy theories which doesn’t hold up to much scrutiny. I’m less skeptical about the CIA being behind the series of bombings in Iran, however; the US has had the Mujahideen-i-Khalq organization under a form of house arrest since the invasion and someone is bound to have seen them as an “asset”. That said, the bombings could also have been the work of jihadis who have their own issues with Iran and who as individuals are less well-known to Iran’s very competent and effective intelligence apparatus than MKO.
Of the 38+ known resistance groups, there are former Baathists as well as ‘nationalists’, (which is a pretty vague covering term). I have no doubt than many of those who have joined or are supporting these groups, people doing the fighting and the dying or taking other risks, are motivated to ‘fight for their country’. But I’m not sure how worthy the groups themselves (especially the Baathists) are of such valorous characterization. The US might have earned its current ‘bad-guy’ status all by itself, but that doesn’t mean everyone opposing the US is therefore a ‘good guy’; or even that their overriding interests have anything to do with the US at all.
“With war worries growing, the president evokes the attacks of 2001 in a speech he hopes will rally support”
Linking Iraq with 9/11
BY CRAIG GORDON
WASHINGTON BUREAU
This article originally appeared at:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usbush294323704jun29,0,1241887.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines
To address this discussion we should have a better understanding of who the co called “insurgents” are. They are defintly not a single entity. Nor do they have a single goal. We can see that by looking at their actions on the ground. To have a better analysis of any situation we shouldn’t simply look into the first layer of events. Actions speak louder than words. So if a particular group claims to be resisting, and their only casualties are Iraqi. Their actions speak louder than their words. We should then ask ourselves who could they be and who are they serving?
Needless to say that many such groups use kidnapping as a business. Their aim is financial. Thus they could easily be hired by anyone who pays them more. Namely the CIA to serve as a destablizing element.
Looking back at the first days after the fall of Baghdad we can see the resistence back then focusing mainly on the U.S and British forces. Then came the UN HQ bombing. At a time when the UN was challenging the US authority in post war Iraq.
Therefore the bombing begs the question. Who did it serve? It is easy to label such thinking as “conspiracy theory” to dismiss it. It will be ignorent to assume that the US Govt. acts only in one dimension. That of which we see in the media. They surely have the intelligence, history, and experience to make them “conspire”.
Thus the best way to undermine the resistence is to blow up cars in highley populated Iraqi Markets killing Iraqi innocent civilians. Same applies for targetting Shii’ mosques and Sunni clerics.
I could go on and on about how the US army “failed” – willingly in my opinion – to control post war Iraq. I shall leave the readers with few questions:
– How come the US govt captured Saddam less than a year after the fall of Iraq. Yet Al-Zarqai is still at large? To fully understand the question, one needs to see the difference between the two. One has rules the country for 35 and lived in it for almost the rest of his life. The other is a foreigner to that country and only moved there recently.
– How come the US Govt. although still complains about foreign fighters haven’t done anything about border security? Last time I visited Iraq, I stayed in the taxi while the Taxi driver took our passports to the border guard. I could have entered under someone else’s papers.
“Of the 38+ known resistance groups, there are former Baathists as well as ‘nationalists’, (which is a pretty vague covering term). I have no doubt than many of those who have joined or are supporting these groups, people doing the fighting and the dying or taking other risks, are motivated to ‘fight for their country’.”
We go to war with the insurgency we’ve got, not the one we wish we had. I am sure many of the soldiers fighting in Iraq are motivated to liberate the Iraqis, fighting for their sovereignty etc.
The insurgency you have is killing Iraqi civilians: more Iraqis than US soldiers, more Iraqis than US soldiers kill. Those concerned with the well-being of Iraqis need to address this simple & glaring fact. I am intrigued by the idea that a US withdrawal would precipitate an end to the violent insurgency to which I am referring.
btw the current occupation is legal and recognized by the UN, as is the interim government in Iraq. The insurgencies are illegal according to the terms of the 3rd geneva convention.
Please be careful when stating such comments as:
“The insurgency you have is killing Iraqi civilians: more Iraqis than US soldiers, more Iraqis than US soldiers kill.” and provide refrences for such claims.
I have no doubt that amongst the US Soldiers there are people with noble intentions. However, that doesn’t mean that the Iraqis should spread the Red Carpet for a foreign occupier. The US govt. has no good willed intentions for Iraqis nor the rest of the world for that matter. Some of the goups kidnapping and blowing up cars in Iraqi markets also claim to want to liberate Iraq. Again actions speak louder than words. The US govt actions include but not restricted to:
– Bringing Saddam Hussain into power
– Supporting and arming Saddam with his war against Iran
– Killing and bombing the Iraqi people in “Desert Strom”. Please research the Highway of Death incident. The effects of Depleted Uranium on Iraqi offspring since then. Also on American vetrans. Google “Balkans syndrome, and Gulf war Syndrome”
– 12 years of sanctions responsible for the death of almost 1.2 Millions Iraqi’s according to UNICEF mostly under the age of 5. Which were “legal” sanctions decreed by the UN security counsel.
– An estimated 22,500 – 25,500 civilian deaths caused by military intervention in Iraq. According to http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
The list goes on. So forgive me if I listen to these actions rather than what Mr. Bush tells me on TV.
Feel free to research each and every point on independant sources and some US media archives.
They are there to do everything but help the Iraqi people as it seems. If that is not the case they are doing a terrible job and therefore should leave it to anyone else who could do the same or a bit better.
“the current occupation is legal and recognized by the UN, as is the interim government in Iraq.”
vadim, you
Salah, Chalabi is not the elected PM of Iraq, I fail to see how he is at all germane to my comment.
UNSC 1511 was adapted unanimously and authorises a multinational security force, and urges states to contribute to it and to the reconstruction of Iraq. I am not addressing the legality of the war itself, simply the current US military presence there.
1511 also granted UN authority to the CPA. 1546 recognized the authority of the interim government and was also passed unanimously.
I invite you to demonstrate a legal basis for the insurgency’s claim to sovereign authority, if any such claim has been articulated.
Supporting and arming Saddam with his war against Iran
Saddam was armed almost entirely by the USSR. The United States provided Saddam with no chemical or conventional weapons of any kind. Please note the figures cited by SIPRI.
http://www.answers.com/topic/arms-sales-to-iraq-1973-1990
“Which were “legal” sanctions decreed by the UN security counsel. ”
They were legal, and Hussein and his regime alone are responsible for these sanctions, which also were the only thing preventing Iraq from launching additional wars against Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
“An estimated 22,500 – 25,500 civilian deaths caused by military intervention in Iraq. ”
Most of the deaths detailed on Iraq Body count are insurgency related. Within those categories where the distinction is drawn, ‘insurgent’-derived violence has killed far more Iraqi civilians than US bombs or bullets. Please read the database more closely. You seem to identify all causes to the United States, and none at all to any of the other actors in Iraq. These are not compelling or cogent arguments.
What is your ultimate point? Are you recommending the US withdraw completely from Iraq? Do you actually imagine this will reduce the level of carnage there? I am less interested in defending 50 years of US Iraq policy than in hearing your own forward looking and constructive policy recommendations.
“I invite you to demonstrate a legal basis for the insurgency’s claim to sovereign authority, if any such claim has been articulated.”
Why on earth would you invite someone to demonstrate a claim that has not been made?
PS There are a lot of groups committing violence in Iraq. Insurgency is not the correct term for them either singly or collectively.
insurgency: my dictionary lists as follows:
a condition of revolt against a recognized government that does not reach the proportions of an organized revolutionary government and is not recognized as belligerency
Nothing in there about critical mass or singularity of political purpose. What’s wrong with “insurgency/ies?”
“Why on earth would you invite someone to demonstrate a claim that has not been made?”
Because the claim was implied, which is also why I phrased the question as a contingent claim. If the current elected government of Iraq has no legitimate and legal sovereign authority, exactly which government does? Al-Jaafari’s government is the one against which the violence in Iraq has been directed, at the expense of tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. If you are defending the insurgency to which I am referring, you are defending the legitimacy of suicide bombs directed at civilian Iraqi targets, agents of this same government. I’m sure you have some other insurgency in mind, but I don’t know who they are, what they’re called or what they’ve accomplished, but I doubt any of it is relevant to Iraq’s security and the future well being and safety of its citizens.
Incidentally,’insurgency’ is the preferred usage within just about every major news agency, including al-hayat, al jazeera, Dawn, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the BBC etc.
Faisal,
Ah, this is a popular myth that deserves to be exploded at every opportunity:
Please show me the evidence of the US presence in Iraq at the time of Saddam’s ascension to power.
Whatever the US deserves to be accountable for in the mid-80s regarding Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war (there is plenty), let’s give Saddam credit for being Saddam, from 1969 onwards and not demean the man any further by saying, as William Rivers Pitt does, that he is “an American creation, like Pepsi-Cola or apple pie”. Unless we can produce the evidence for it, that it.
Shirin,
Well, if you accept the imprecision that has been around for a half century or more, ‘insurgency’ is about as good as it gets. ‘Insurgencies’ (the plural) would be better, by a small margin. Can you think of what else would be better?
wind
Vadim,
Kofi Annan has said clearly that the invasion of Iraq by the American was “not conform to the UN chart” aka a diplomatic way to state it’s illegal if you need a translation.
If US hadn’t the most powerfull military, she would be subject to sanctions. Since she is the strongest, well what can the other countries do ? after two years of crisis they tried to mend fences and accepted these resolutions you are quoting.
The fact that resolution have recognized the “fait accompli” doesn’t change the situation. The Americans are occupiers in Iraq and they invaded it illegally.
“Kofi Annan has said clearly that the invasion of Iraq by the American was “not conform to the UN chart” aka a diplomatic way to state it’s illegal if you need a translation.”
My remark didn’t address the legality of the US invasion, merely that of the occupation and the status of Iraq’s elected government. As you’re aware Annan [who isn’t the sole jurisprudential authority at the UN] has recognized the latter’s legitimacy without reservation, and more importantly the UNSC has sanctioned both this government and the US military presence, unanimously. Arguing both for and against UN authority seems opportunistic and cynical to me.
vadim,
“derived violence has killed far more Iraqi civilians than US bombs or bullets. Please read the database more closely”
This is alluded comments, there are no independents source give us any figures than the Americans, even Iraqi doctors and hospitals are not allowed to do Autopsy on the dead body forwarded by American (there is an order sent to all the hospitals in Iraq) in addition Paul Bremer, Roland Rumsfield both said in different occasions they did not count the dead body.
If you really think and care about Iraqi civilian I asked you give a visit to Iraq now and find by yourself what’s happened their, starting with the destruction of entire country to find WMD to the living status of Iraqi and listen to there stories of day to day war time and till now I think you can say the war continue. Go through Google and find by yourself how much US dropped Deployed Uranium bombs on Iraq in 1991.
Last week a military official said they did not know how much the deployed Uranium dropped on Iraq!!!.
Listen to one of link I forwarded on this site (just do Google) from your military guy he telling the real show in Nasryia who he walks passing the street with dead bodies of women kids on the street
vadim, Read this, how your media reported the war news
“During the U.S. military’s 14th month in Iraq, a New York Times news story — under the headline “A Full Range of Technology Is Applied to Bomb Fallujah” — began by reporting that “the air strikes in Fallujah in the past three days by American warplanes and helicopter gunships have been the most intense aerial bombardment in Iraq since major combat ended nearly a year ago.”
Picture-Perfect Killers
By Norman Solomon
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Monday 20 June 2005
Sorry this is the link
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/062005M.shtml
Salah is right.
Vadim,
1. The false term “insurgency” has been used since long before there was a government in Iraq that was recognized by anyone.
2. Setting aside the issue of the legitimacy or lack thereof of what is now being called the government in Iraq, there is no evidence that the so-called “insurgency” is a revolt against that government, Bush administration propaganda notwithstanding.
PS The fact that the news media faithfully parrot a term or a sound bite, or a piece of propaganda or claim, or assumption does not make it accurate or factual.
Wind,
No, insurgency is not as good as it gets, and insurgencies is not better. Insurgency is a revolt or rebellion against a legitimate or recognized civil authority. That is not what is going on in Iraq. There are groups conducting legitimate resistance against the occupation, including in some cases Iraqi collaborators. There are groups which are conducting violent operations for their own purposes under the guise of resistance. And there are common criminals using the chaos and lawlessness caused by American incompetence to commit a variety of crimes for pure profit. None of these are insurgents.
What word would I suggest? There is no one word that covers it all, and in any case it should not all be lumped together.
Shirin,
I see your point – and, courtesy of your previous posts, I understand that it is not a purely lexicographic one. Thanks for it.
I would come back with a relatively minor point and say, dictionary notwithstanding, the same usage has applied to previous … um, phenomena that share many of the same attributes since at least post-WWII Greece. People latch on to a descriptive word and it sticks – the tactics of armed resistance seem to match the picture, and of course the complexity of the situation is washed away.
Of course, you could respond that words do matter, that they carry representations and meanings and deserve to be challenged when they carry them improperly, and you would be right. Maybe in the absence of a usable word, the right approach is to point out, perhaps repeatedly, that even in such descriptions, the devil is in the details and that as in the situation, things are not always as they seem … ?
wind
there is no evidence that the so-called “insurgency” is a revolt against that government
I think you mean “so-called government.” I am referring to the so-called insurgency that is blowing up so-called police stations every other day via so-called suicide bomb.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/bodycount2.php?ts=1120229596
Please note the character of the most deadly attacks:
“people queuing at bank”, “Bodies probably those of workers for foreign contractors”, “bodies found, possibly of executed Iraqi soldiers tied, shot dead” “mosques, police patrol, bathhouse”, “restaurants and bus station”, “traffic police recruits” “customers at kebab restaurant”.
How many of these do you count as ‘collaborators?’ Assuming (as you seem to with your terminological issues) that the police and army are agents of an illegitimate government, just who do you recognize in its stead as the lawful authority in Iraq?
Vadim,
I repeat that there is no evidence that the so-called insurgencey is a revolt against the government. Nothing in your most recent post even addresses that let alone does it constitute an argument against it.
Actually there is a word that captures mindless and irrational violence with no moral bounds based on multiple, vague, and constantly changing ideological justification. It is called JIHAD.
David
Actually there is a word that captures mindless and irrational violence with no moral bounds based on multiple, vague, and constantly changing ideological justification. It is called God Solders when the Israeli kinds learn the Zionist theory
Arguing with Bush
Bush’s speech.
Juan Colewrit on Wednesday, June 29, 2005, nice to read
http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/arguing-with-bush-bushs-speech.html
“when the Israeli kinds learn the Zionist theory”
salah, when nice people like yourself no longer use ‘zionist’ as a pejorative expression, israeli extremists will no longer have an ‘existential threat’ to justify their militarism. please acquaint yourself with the history of zionism, which is hardly a religious movement; quite the opposite.
“There are groups conducting legitimate resistance against the occupation, including in some cases Iraqi collaborators. ”
Please Shirin, if you would: might you cite a recent instance of legitimate resistance against Iraqi collaborators?
Why do we keep talking about “Iraq” as if there was some sort of existing nation-state entity by that name? There is no such thing. Iraq today is only a set of coordinate points and connecting lines on a map. Those points and lines tell us nothing about the forces at work in the region.
The so-called government of Iraq does none of the things traditionally associated with the concept of government. It has no ability to provide for the health, safety or welfare of the population. It certainly has no monopoly on the use of force.
The most ardent supporters of the current US war effort are eager to point out that this “government” would immediately cease to exist if the US forces were withdrawn. When is a government not a government?
No explanation of this war is correct, because the war has no explanation. It does not make any sense. It does not follow any plan. It does not achieve any purpose. Of course, this is not a new feature of war. Homer described a similar situation in the Iliad, using the whims of the gods as a dramatic device to illustrate the meaninglessness and futility of armed conflict.
When will we ever learn?
John, maybe Iraq is just one of the battlegrounds of the ongoing war between some of the western nations and the Jihadis. The US had the good fortune or the wisdom to pick the location this time. Ground zero, Afghanistan, and the Madrid train stations were locations imposed by the enemy.
Learn what? To walk away like the Spaniards did?
David
There once was an opportunity in Afghanistan, David. We had the world’s sympathy after 9/11. Hardly anyone blamed us for routing Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Never was a country more in need of our assistance. Had we stayed that course, and completed the mission of restoring security and rebuilding infrastructure, we could have left the jihadis without a political foundation. But that option was never seriously considered, because it is not consistent with the logic of war. Now the opportunity is gone, but the war goes on, in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
I don’t know what you think the Spaniards walked away from, David. Don’t they still live in the same world we live in? The new government, in accordance with the clearly expressed will of an overwhelming majority of its people, chose to withdraw the previous government’s superficial support of the US occupation of Iraq. Isn’t that how democracy is supposed to work?
On the subject of useless deaths and easy shooting Americans, an Italian study provide some statistical data.
Il Centro studi strategie internazionali directed by Gianni Cipriani has issued a new “Revista di Intelligence” . The number zero (aka the first issue) deals with the death of Calipari (The SISMI agent killed by the US soldier when Juliana Sgrena was liberated. One of the report (Dying of checkpoint analyses statistical data concerning the number of casualties and wounded Iraqis registered at US checkpoint
Here is a translation from the Italian text :
Dying of checkpoint
“From march 2003 untill Aprile 2005, 311 civilians have died and 674 have been wounded at US checkpoints in Iraq. For the first four months of April 2005, the data show an increase of 22.7% with respect to 2004, when there was about one death each two days. The number of these “checkpoints’ slaughters are reported by the zero issue of the “Rivista di intelligence” launched by the “Centro studi strategie internazionali”. It has been distributed to-day (28th June 2005) to the members of the Italian legislative and it is entirely dedicated to the death of Nicola Calipari. “Calipari – explained the director of the new review – has been the 282th civilian killed under these conditions; during the 56 following days, there were 29 more of such deaths registered at US check points in Iraq, a clear sign that there hasn’t been any review of the criticized rules of engagement for checkpoints.
The data, added Cipriani, were obtained using public sources (US Army criminal investigation command and independant organizations) and were confirmed/verified. They could be wrong only because they take in account zones which were monitored, while ignoring similar cases succeeding in un-monitored zones, lying in the periphery. The inquiries brought forward some of the charasteristics of the US modus operandi at checkpoints in Iraq : in several cases the US fired while the car had stopped or was backing away; they have fired against cars occupied by women and children; in several cases they didn’t bring help to the wounded after firing; projectiles containing depleted uranium were also found; in almost all cases, the instructions given to the soldiers were to fire directly at the passengers if the cars didn’t stop immediately, instead of firing against the engine of the car; in some cases the soldiers have maintained that there weren’t well established rules of engagements, but that these rules were changing depending on the mood of the commandant; in several occasions the US soldiers have fired without any reasons. Some US soldiers have even reported that in some cases the wounded Iraqis hold after the incident, were robbed or mistreated by the soldiers who were guarding them. Furthermore, Cipriani added that in most cases the inquiries ended with a dismissal of the charges, without establishing the responsibility of the US militaries. ”
Yes John, we had the sympathy that victims get. Trust me, sympathy doesn’t last long, and it wears thin on the wearer. Jihad is being waged against us in many places, should we just respond in a few where the sympathies work best?
The Spaniards can do whatever they please, they disappointed me by walking away and leaving us with a larger burden. It speaks to how solid or shaky our partners are. Spain set the terrible precedent that you can get them to change their foreign policy by implied or exercised threats on their citizens. It also debunked the myth that the Iraqi and Al-Qaeda Jihads were not connected. The Al-Qaeda actors unleashed the 200 person train massacre explicitly because of Spain’s participation in Iraq. End of story.
David
“Spain set the terrible precedent that you can get them to change their foreign policy by implied or exercised threats on their citizens.”
David, over 90% of the Spanish people were opposed to the war from the beginning. Aznar defied the popular will by supporting Bush. At the first opportunity, the people duly voted him out of office. “End of story.”
Sorry, I’ve had bad luck with hyper links lately. Here’s the URL to the 3/29/03 Guardian story about Spanish opposition to Aznar’s war policy:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,925118,00.html
Salah Jmor, a bi-national Iraqi-Swiss citizen of Kurdish origin has been killed by a US sniper. It succeeded last tuesday (June 27th), at a US/Iraqi checkpoint. A “trusted source” of the Tribune de Gen
very illuminating thread…one never would have suspected that
*”the ‘faceless ones’…who are terrorists…[might in fact be sponsored by the]… US CIA (or other state entity, like the Israeli’s Moussad)…just like the US forces were behind such actions in Central America in the 1980’s.”
*”Looking back at the first days after the fall of Baghdad we can see the resistence (sic) back then focusing mainly on the U.S and British forces. Then came the UN HQ bombing. At a time when the UN was challenging the US authority in post war Iraq. Therefore the bombing begs the question. Who did it serve?… It will be ignorent (sic) to assume that the US Govt. acts only in one dimension…Thus the best way to undermine the resistence is to blow up cars in highley (sic) populated Iraqi Markets killing Iraqi innocent civilians. Same applies for targetting Shii’ mosques and Sunni clerics.”
*”There is a word that captures mindless and irrational violence with no moral bounds based on multiple, vague, and constantly changing ideological justification. It is called God Solders when the Israeli kinds learn the Zionist theory.”
The Spaniards can do whatever they please, they disappointed me by walking away and leaving us with a larger burden.David
They didn’t walk away, they finally followed the will of the majority of the population not to be involved in the war in Iraq.
It speaks to how solid or shaky our partners are. Spain set the terrible precedent that you can get them to change their foreign policy by implied or exercised threats on their citizens. David
Not true at all. Like it was said before, the removal of Spanish troops from Iraq was the overwhelming will of the people before the terrorist attack ever happened.
And they have arrested and charged a few people with that attack also (unlike the USA).
It also debunked the myth that the Iraqi and Al-Qaeda Jihads were not connected. David
They were not connected before the US invasion into Iraq.
The Al-Qaeda actors unleashed the 200 person train massacre explicitly because of Spain’s participation in Iraq. End of story.
David
So that proves that violence begets violence, not a new lesson at all. Which is the main reason that many of us were opposed to this optional war for bogus reasons: it would only make violence and terrorism in the world worse. Terrorism will come back to the USA one day, which is sad but predicable.
At the US Senate Armed Services Committee meeting last week, the one that the public were allowed to go to, a couple of Senators and a General talked about how the US should pressure the Iraqi government to do their political process “our way”.
Which rather underlines the fact that the Iraqi government is not self-determined.
And the son of the cousin of the Iraqi Ambassador to the UN was shot and killed in his own home by US Marines. He was unarmed. I wonder how often that happens.
Hammurabi, you missed this classic:
“there is no evidence that the so-called insurgencey is a revolt against the government.”
P. Lazslo, if you have seen evidence that the so-called “insurgency” is in revolt against the Iraqi “government”, perhaps you would be kind enough to present this evidence.
shirin, I would have thought bombing attacks on government officials, police stations, polling stations and l;iterally every last manifestation of the iraqi government counts as revolt. unless “revolt” has evolved some new meaning of which I am unaware.
shirin, I would have thought bombing attacks on government officials, police stations, polling stations and l;iterally every last manifestation of the iraqi government would make this a self-evident fact. unless there is some novel usage of “revolt” taking place?
P. Lazslo, what you would have thought is nothing more than speculation. It does not constitute evidence. Try again, please.
John,
Please check the pre-attack polls. All evidence is that Aznar was going to be re-elected in the absence of the Al_Qaeda attacks.
David
Susan,
Al Qaeda’s intervention in Madrid and in Iraq debunks the naive argument that somehow Iraq and Al-Qaeda were two unrelated entities. Jihad as an anti-American and anti-western effort is not confined to a particular location. Terrorism exists in the USA, as the Pakistanis just caught in Lodi, California demonstrates. What is your story now Susan, was this provoked by the US invading Lodi?
The Spaniards chickened out. You can afford to chicken out when there is somebody else to do the dirty work. It just shows that not all allies are equal. We note that and move on.
David
“It does not constitute evidence.”
it is not an a posteriori claim requiring evidence. it is a tautology that attacks (bombings, shootings) on the government (elected officials, police, Iraqi soldiers) are actually “attacks on the government.” the government = those in the internationally recognized freely elected government and its agents. If you have different working definitions of any of the entities discussed above, I’d love to hear what they are.
I am also interested to hear an answer to the question posed earlier upthread: “would you cite a recent instance of legitimate resistance against Iraqi collaborators?” Please do tell.
“All evidence is that Aznar was going to be re-elected in the absence of the Al_Qaeda attacks.”
That is false. I remember very well that in the days before the train station bombing Spanish media were reporting that the contest was considered too close to call.
P. Lazslo, you ridiculed a statement of mine that there was no evidence that the so-called “insurgency” is in revolt against the “government”. Now you seem to be confirming the very statement that you ridiculed.
هذه قصيدة مؤلمه عن العراق
الكرة السحرية تتحدث عن العراق
سرمد خالد عبدالله
ذات مَرّة أثناءَ رِحلةٍ في البَرِيّة
وَجَدتُ كُرَةً زجاجيةً سِحرية
قادرةً على الإتصالاتِ الروحية
عَبْرَ المساحاتِ البَرِّيّةِ والبحرية
لتَنْقُلَ أخبارَ البشرية
في أيّ مكانٍ على الكُرةِ الأرضِية
لَمَسْتُها، فإذا بوجهٍ لهُ بَعْضُ الشَفَافِيّة
قُلتُ لها أخبريني عن العراق
وعنْ أهلي والرفاق
فقدْ طالَ الفُراق
قالتْ: ما سأقولُهُ قدْ لا يُطاق
قلتُ: قولي ما عندَكِ
قالتْ: صِراعٌ على الكراسي ودَمٌ مُراق
وخرابٌ في كُلِّ زُقاق
ودُخانٌ يملأُ اللآفاق
وشعبٌ أصابَهُ انشقاق
قلت لها: كذَبْتِ،
فليسَ هذا ما وُعِدْنا بهِ ولا ما جَرى مِنْ إتّفاق
ضَحِكَتْ وقهقهَتْ ثمَّ قالَتْ: أفِقْ يا مُعاق
أعلمتُها بقسوةِ أخبارِها
فأجابتْ: أفضلُ مِنَ النِّفاق
عُدْتُ وسألْتُ عنِ الميناء
عنِ البصرةِ الفيحاء
ردَّت: يَمرَحُ فيها الغُرَباء
عابثينَ بِكُلِّ فَناء
قلتُ: فَماذا عَن النجفِ وكربلاء؟
قالتْ: سوقٌ لِتَصريفِ البضاعةِ السوداء
فقلتُ حائرا: والمَوصلِ الحدباء؟
قالتْ: المٌ ونحيبٌ وبُكاء
قلتُ: عسى خيراً في الفلوجةِ أو سامراء
قالتْ: مَسرَحٌ لِقتْلِ الأبرياء
قلتُ: فأينَ أهلنا النُجباء؟
قالتْ: إستقوى عليهِم العُمَلاء
أصابني الدوار، بهذهِ الأخبار
سرَحْتُ في الأفكار، بحثاً عن إستقرار
سألتُ عنْ كركوك فجاءَني الجواب: كَشُعلةٍ منْ نار
قلوبٌ مستعرةٌ وعيونٌ يتطايرُ منْها الشرار
كلُّ من سارَ عليها إدّعى أنّ غيرَهُ غريبٌ عن الدار
قلتُ: لماذا لا تُحَلُّ خلافاتُنا بحِكْمةٍ ووَقار؟
من هوَ صاحبُ القرار؟
قالتْ: إنهُ هوَ الواحدُ القهار
قلتُ: لمْ تَفْهمي سؤالي
قالتْ: بلى، لكنَّ جوابَهُ عَصِيٌّ حتى على الأسْحار
حسِبتُها تَهزأُ بِنا لِما جلَبَتْهُ لنا الأقدار
فأجبتُها بحَزْمٍ: لنْ يكونَ لكِ إنتصار
نحنُ منْ تَحدّى الأخطار
نحنُ أناسٌ صامِدونَ كالأحجار
صابرونَ كصَبْرِ الأشجار
نحنُ شعبٌ بنى حضارةً تشْهدُ عليها كَثرةُ الآثار
نحنُ منْ بَنى بغدادَ وأحاطَها بالأسوار
نحنُ منْ رَفَعَ الملويّةَ مِئذنةً للأنصار
نحنُ منْ وثَّقَ بالكتابةِ غزارةً منَ الأفكار
نحنُ منْ بِحِبْرِ الكُتُبِ لوَّنَ الأنْهار
نحنُ منْ برَعَ في الرياضياتِ، نحنُ منْ فسَّرَ
كيفِيّةَ الإبصار
نحنُ منْ دَحَرَ عدُوّهُ في حطّين، نحنُ منْ إنتصرَ في ذي قار
فقاطَعَتْني وقالتْ: بلْ هُمْ أجدادُكم كانوا من الأخيار
سألتُ: ماذا تغيَّرَ بعدَ ذاكَ الإنهيار؟
قالتْ: نَخَرَتْ قلوبَكُم الأنانيّةُ، واستَعْبَدَكُم الدينار
أخجلَني كلامُها كأنَّها تُوَجِّهُ لنا الإنذار
ثمَّ عُدْتُ بصوتٍ خافتٍ ووجهٍ يميلُ الى الاحمرار:
هلْ منْ سبيلٍ لمحوِ هذا العار
لإعادةِ الأمجاد لهذهِ الأمصار؟
هلْ منْ نهايةٍ لهذا الليلِ، هلْ منْ مجيءٍ للنهار؟
فالشمسُ غائبةٌ منذُ كُنا صغار
وما عُدنا قادرينَ على الإنتظار
أخبرينا عنْ سِرِّ أجدادِنا إنْ كُنتِ تعلمينَ الأسرار
قالتْ: سِرُّهُمْ يعرِفُهُ الصغارُ والكبار
تضحيةٌ وثقةٌ واتكالٌ على النفسِ
بعدَ الخالقِ الجبّار
shirin, your latest remark seems incoherent to me, but that’s ok. “the” “insurgency” “is” in “revolt” against “the government” and that’s all we need to know. I fully expect you to come back with “no it’s not” or something equally trenchant. don’t bother.
But I would still like to know what constitutes legitimate resistance against Iraqi collaborators. Please please please give us just one example, so we know what kind of a person you are. Feel free to use an incident from the iraq body count database to make your point, I’m curious to know who on this list you think deserved to die.
P. Lazslo,
So, “the” “insurgency” “is” in “revolt” against “the government” and that’s all we need to know because you and the Bush administration propagandists say so, right? Wrong.
There is no such thing as “the insurgency”. The use of that term is nothing more than a convenient rhetorical/propaganda device used for purposes of spin and to avoid dealing with the complex realities of the matter. The groups and individuals that are falsely labeled “the insurgency” existed and were active long, long before this latest iteration of so-called “government”, which was by the way, not freely elected, has no power, and does not operate as anything remotely resembling the government of a sovereign state. The groups and individuals that are falsely labeled “the insurgency” could not possibly have been in revolt against the “government” before the “government” existed, and they have not changed their focus noticeably since the “election”.
The groups and individuals that constitute the resistance are fighting foreign occupation, not revolting against this poor excuse for a “government”. The so-called “Iraqi” security forces are funded, equipped, selected, trained and operate at the behest and for the benefit of the occupying power, not the so-called “government”.
The The religious extremist groups are not “in revolt against the ‘government’ “, they are focused on attacking elements of the occupation while establishing what power they can relative to other groups.
The violent criminals who are using the chaos created and maintained by the incompetence of the American occupiers are not in revolt against anything. They are focused on profitting by hiring themselves out as murderers and kidnappers for hire.
P. Lazslo
I told and I heard there are a few places in New York now the police not going to because they are so violent and there are many gangs make the police hesitate to go there. This is in US right now
What you talking in Iraq it
“Spanish voters rejected the Popular Party three days after the attacks, even though it had led the opinion polls in the weeks leading up to the election.”
— BBC News, 3/23/04
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3560561.stm
I repeat: I was following things quite closely at the time, and I recall clearly that according to SPANISH SOURCES the contest was considered too close to call. Last I checked the BBC was not a Spanish source.
PS Hammurabi,a
I also do remember clearly that the “lead” Aznar’s party had in the polls was within the margin of error for the polls, and therefore added up to exactly nothing.
Concerning the Spanish elections, I live in Europe and can confirm what Shirin says. Aznar wasn’t reelected because despite all evidence he lied about the probable author of the bombing, trying to attribute it to the ETA (an internal separatist movement) instead of Al’Quaeda. Aznar lies constituted the final strike to his party in an election which was all but won. Aznar’s popularity was also suffering from his inconditional support to Bush aggressive policies (90% of the Spaniards were opposing the Iraq invasion) and from the very bad management of an ecological disaster on the Atlantic coast.
Lazlo stated :
“But I would still like to know what constitutes legitimate resistance against Iraqi collaborators”.
Very easy : in order to have a collaborator, you need a foreign invasion and occupiers. The collaborator is the one who works hand in hand with the invader/occupier. As far as I know, the US invasion was never allowed by the UNSC. Kofi Annan said it was “Not conform to the UN chart”. Eminent English jurists have cautioned Blair concerning the illegality of an invasion in Iraq. This is proved by the recent leak of Downingstreet memos. Since England has signed the treaty establishing the ICC (International Criminal Court), Blair could be brought in front of this court, all the more that he was warned by his jurists. I hope these time will come and that we will be able to try Bush Rummies Wolfowitz and their likes.
Christiane,
Thank you for reminding us of the greatest reason for Aznar’s defeat in the election – that he lied and tried to blame the attack on the train station on ETA instead of admitting it was Al Qaeda. It was that, far more than the attack itself, that caused the voters to turn against him. Poor old Aznar, it seems he saw Bush and Blair getting away with all their lies, and thought he could too.
Aznar may have lost because of the way he handled the al-Qaeda attack in Madrid but most objective observers and public opinion polls had his party winning BEFORE the attack. Zapatero may enjoy his role as Little Brother to Schroeder and Chirac – and sticking his tongue out at the Americans – but let’s see the regard that Merkel will have for him after she is elected German Chancellor this fall (and, perhaps, Sarkozy in France in a couple of years). Zapatero’s mini-summits may be limited to his buddies Castro and Chavez.
Imo, it will be years before we can truly appraise the last Spanish elections.
Wana have the last word Hamurabi ?
Whoever win the coming elections in EU countries won’t change the fact that nowadays the US is no more considered as a positive stabilizing power by the Europeans, rather the contrary.
Meanwhile, the Iraq campaign is wearing ouot the US military it seems : Pentagon rethinking the “two wars” dogma. Maintaining an army large enough to sustain two wars at the same time apparently costs too much.
Today I got a “personalized” letter from retired general Tommy Franks, asking me to give money to a private organization that is trying to help pay for the needs of wounded veterans of the Iraq war. Sounds like a good cause, right?
Can anyone see what is wrong with this?
“Whoever win the coming elections in EU countries won’t change the fact that nowadays the US is no more considered as a positive stabilizing power by the Europeans…”
you are entitled to your opinion…in my view, altho EU elections – including recent ones in UK, France and Netherlands – admittedly largely turn on domestic issues, the election this fall in Germany is a watershed one…once elected, Angela Merkel, an unabashed Americaphile, will make every effort to bolster the transatlantic relationship…she will work closely with Tony Blair to this end…she will find willing accomplices throughout East Europe who have learned through bitter historical experience to value American steadfastness…Zapatero and, indeed, Chirac will be the odd men out…but that’s just my opinion.
Christiane, since Al Gore gave us the internet 🙂 one does not have to be in Europe to be informed. And why did Aznar lie about the terrorists being Arab rather than ETA? Maybe he feared his people would link Al-Qaeda retribution for his token Iraq contribution and chicken out? Or he lied just because? Please, Jihad is a multi-faceted phenomenon that we may ignore at our own peril (paraphrasing Shirin).
David
Christiane, as mentioned above the government of Iraq has the sanction of the UN. The legality of the invasion itself is not in question here. The legality of a ‘resistance’ that targets civilians by the thousands is.
Please cite an instance of ‘legitimate resistance’ directed at ‘collaborators’ with the UN-sanctioned occupation, or with this government. A single instance from the Iraq body Count database will suffice. I’m also genuinely interested in hearing self-described pacifists’ ideas concerning exactly which civilians merit death by suicide bomb.
Shirin seems to have ducked the question weakly offering up a blizzard of scare quotes and hollow paranthetical comments re; propaganda [as if global media were not accessible to anyone with a modem!].
“And why did Aznar lie about the terrorists being Arab rather than ETA? ”
For the same reason Bush and Blair lied : because they are dishonnest politicians, who don’t care for their country, but are only preoccupied with their own interests, not that of their people.
Hammurabi,
You take what you wish for reality. Elections results in Germany are all but sure. Do you know of the new created party of LaFontaine ? He will get the voices of those deceived by Shroeder’s SDP, including many in the former East Germany. The new party wasn’t barely announced that the polls credited it with about 10% (aka the biggest party behind Merkel’s and Shroeder’s parties. They bypassed even the Greens (which is the greatest green party in EU). Analysts say that Merkel’s CDU and the liberal may not get enough voices to form the next government. The people who are deceived by Shroeder aren’t going to give their voices to Merkel, because they are on the left of the Social Democratic Party. Shroeder claims that he won’t make an alliance with LA Fontaine.. so we risk to have a Merkel/Shroeder government ??? or may be he would nevertheless compromise with the left ? the situation is getting interesting. Anyway, don’t forget that if Shroeders won the last elections it was largely because he opposed the invasion of Iraq.. The German opinion hasn’t changed on that.
And please don’t forget the coming elections in Italy, where Berlusconi will likely go down and be replaced by Prodi. The majority of Europeans is consistently opposed to the US invasion of Iraq and I don’t think any democraticly elected government can resist a clear and persistent trend (The Spanish government, the Portugese government have fallen largely because of their inconditionnal support to the US war despite their opinion; the Italian government will know the same fate).
In France, Chirac’s party did poorly in the last local elections for internal reasons, as you pointed, but this benefited to the socialists who are also opposed to the Iraq war. Sarkozy, who is part of the actual coalition and of Chirac’s government isn’t yet sure to be the next presidential candidate of the right; De Villepin may well challenge him. Further where did you get the idea that Sarkozy was a fervent US supporter and a defensor of the war in Iraq ?
Christiane,
Thanks for bringing up the Pentagon’s impending revision of its ‘two wars’ doctrine, even though it is really only tangentially related. To be precise, the doctrine (not dogma, in any sense) says that the US military should be able to commit forces to winning one ‘MRC’ (major regional conflict, a step down from the global war the Pentagon formerly planned that would commence with a Soviet invasion of Europe) while maintaining the forces to respond (by halting, slowing or deterring) a second MRC in another part of the world.
The doctrine itself was a policy compromise, without significant strategic foundations, and was never really sustainable in the context of the post-Cold War world. It’s not a new issue brought on by the situation in Iraq. It has been challenged many times in the 1990s by various parts of the national security apparatus in the US. One largely unforseen factor was that ongoing peacekeeping missions in Bosnia, Kosova, Haiti and elsewhere, rather than being light-footprint operations, put almost the same strain on logistics, unit readiness and so forth that fighting an MRC would …. without crossing the threshold that would require the political decision to commit more resources. It is a surprising outcome; less troops on the ground, less planes and tanks and vehicles and spare parts and other material would seem to take less out of what’s available, but it wasn’t that much less and still more than enough to have a decisive effect. The details of this are a little arcane, but the effects were clear: they offered support for the mid/late 90s rationale for ending the two wars doctrine, offered by those who opposed US presence in peacekeeping missions and also who opposed Clinton generally.
This is worth mentioning here because it’s an echo of a general theme concerning the topics we discuss here, and almost everything covered in this thread: (Summary: ‘The devil is in the details’)
1. Things are rarely what they appear to be from a distance, and deserve careful scrutiny if they’re to be understood properly (and appropriate action taken);
2. People as individuals and small groups have their own interests and interact in ways that shape what we end up mistaking for a monolithic reality, making it even more difficult to understand properly (as true as the US policy in Iraq as it is for the insurgency, which Shirin has been pointing out) and leading to unintended consequences from actions taken;
3. Politics are in the end always local, and more important than grand abstractions about major powers (including those indulged in by the talking heads that articulate major powers’ policies); and finally,
4. Political outcomes always represent a compromise, in which there are winners and losers … who remain in the fight aftwards, in one form or another.
Okay, probably busted the word limit again … but I felt the need for a summarization 🙂
wind (a name well-earned once again)
Vadim,
I have ducked nothing. I simply have chosen not to address the issue with you at all. My use of scare quotes, etc., had nothing to do with this topic, but a completely different one.
“the government of Iraq has the sanction of the UN.”
That the Bush administration has succeeded in bullying the UN in some things does not make those things legitimate or legal. It takes more than “sanction from the UN” to make something legal.
“The legality of a ‘resistance’ that targets civilians by the thousands is.”
Where on earth does this come from? No one has suggested that the resistance targets civilians by the thousands, or even by the ones and twos.
In fact, not only is there no reason to believe that the resistance targets civilians, there is evidence that civilians are not the targets in the overwhelming majority of attacks. According to a study done by CSIS – hardly a left wing anti-war organization – only a miniscule percentage of all “insurgent” attacks – in the low single digits, as a matter of fact – actually target civilians. That includes attacks by all the various groups and individuals, that have been falsely labeled “insurgents”. So, not only is there no basis for the claim that the resistance targets civilians, there is objective, measurable evidence that in general the so-called “insurgency” do not target civilians.
And yes, the resistance is quite legal whether the UN has given its sanction to the so-called “government”. Iraq is a country suffering under a brutal, oppressive foreign occupation that resulted from an act of naked aggression. Iraqis have a right to use violent and non-violent means to liberate themselves and their country from this unwanted foreign presence.
“not only is there no basis for the claim that the resistance targets civilians”
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/
Here’s your evidence. THOUSANDS of dead Iraqi civilians murdered by suicide bomb. Are these suicide bombers the ones you portray as ‘profiteers’?
I’m sure you’ll claim that the hundreds of suicide bombers targeting civilians aren’t insurgents. Your notional resistance fighters are clinically pure and perfectly righteous. But does it have a name, your “resistance?” Has it issued any statements we can read? Does it have any leadership or chain of command? Any insignia? Any organizing documents or declaration of principles? You’ll forgive me for taking your many undocumented assertions with some salt.
I doubt you’d venture to claim these incidents were concocted by US media, since half the cites are AFP or al-jaz.
You have yet to answer the question posed upthread: who among these innocent victims is a collaborator? which of these dead Iraqis deserved their fate?
“the resistance is quite legal”
according to whose law? Not the 3rd and 4th geneva convention & certainly not the UN charter.
“Here’s your evidence. THOUSANDS of dead Iraqi civilians murdered by suicide bomb”
In few occasions there are two or tree people in the care that supposedly designated and killed civilians, why onearth three people go together and kill themselves where one driver enough to do the job?!!
Another incident that the car designated in Hilla killed 120 Civilian in very busy market driver’s hands both secured to the driving wheel!!!.
As far we know this type of act done and used by Israelis in 1967 war when Israeli troops used women to drive the military Tanks and Mocks both their hand was secured to the drive wheel to prevent them from leaving the battlefields……
“Spain set the terrible precedent that you can get them to change their foreign policy by implied or exercised threats on their citizens.”
— I believe you will find that the Brits have far more backbone than the Spaniards in this regard.
According to a study done by CSIS – hardly a left wing anti-war organization – only a miniscule percentage of all “insurgent” attacks – in the low single digits, as a matter of fact – actually target civilians.
http://www.csis.org/features/iraq_deviraqinsurgency.pdf
See page 6.
A jaw dropping distortion.
CSIS:
Coalition (Killed) : 451
Civilian (killed): 1981 (!)
Police (killed): 480
Coalition (Wounded) : 1002
Civilian (wounded): 3467
police (wounded) 1012
Percent targetted is a completely irrelevant statistic. One insurgency or another kills Iraqi civilians (including police) 5 times as fast as it kills US soldiers. That’s the insurgency I’m talking about, Shirin.
“Percent targetted is a completely irrelevant statistic.”
Nice try, Vadim (not really, it was actually very lame), but this is a completely absurd claim. Percent targetted is the only truly relevant statistic when considering who is being targetted. Percent killed and wounded is relevant only in determining who is being killed and wounded and is not relevant to the target of the attack. Aside from the fact that the number killed and wounded is not a reliable indicator of who is being targetted, you should be very careful about using that to show civilians are being targetted because based on that measure invasion/occupation forces clearly target civilians. The disproportionate number of civilians killed and wounded compared to so-called “coalition” forces only tells us that “coalition” forces are better protected and therefore harder to kill and wound.
In this study the number of attacks on each target, not the number killed and wounded is what tells us who is being targetted. Clearly the overwhelming majority of attacks have been against so-called “coalition” forces:
Coalition: 3227 (!)
Police: 208
Public Property: 182
Civilians: 180
The overwhelming majority of attacks – 75% – targetted so-called “coalition” forces while only 4% of the time were civilians the target of an attack.
Wind – good points to keep in mind. I would add one more:
5. History is not a movie. It does not have a self-contained beginning, middle and end. It is never over, and there are no fresh starts.
“while only 4% of the time were civilians the target of an attack.”
correction: Iraqi police are also civilians (hence their inclusion among the Iraq Body Count database). civilians are furthermore objects of attacks on civilian facilities.
But of course the percentage of undefined “incidents” is a risibly useless metric, considering the vast disparity in effectiveness. I have no doubt there are [“]insurgency/ies[“] targeting coalition forces. They don’t seem to be very successful at this, requiring nearly ten incidents (undefined) per soldier killed. Whereas 10 civilians are killed on average for every attack directed at them (market bombs suicide attacks, etc). Suicide bombs are 2 orders of magnitude more effective and of course suicide bombers are aware of this themselves. A suicide bomb in a crowded market is implicitly ‘directed’ at hundreds of potential victims (the Hilla bomb claimed 150 lives), whereas attacks on patrol units can realistically result in no more than 1 or 2 fatalities at a time. Viewing a sniper attack and a truck bomb each as one incident and comparing these figures is simply the depth of stupidity.
Correction: No, police are NOT civilians. Iraq Body Count can categorize them that way for their purposes if they want to, but they do not make that determination in any other context. For your information, here is the definition of civilian: “A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military or police.”
As for your second paragraph, you can blow as much smoke as you want about “success rates”, orders of magnitude and fatalities per attack, but that will not change the reality that these things tell us nothing about who is targetted. The only relevant statistic in that regard is the number of attacks per target.
And I would caution you once more about using the number killed and wounded as an indication of who is being targetted – unless, of course, you are prepared to concede that the invasion and occupation forces target civilians in a very big way.
Vadim,
Your assertion that police are civilians not only is incorrect, it does nothing at all for your argument. If one adds the number of attacks in which police were targetted to those in which civilians were targetted it increases the percentage of attacks targetting “civilians” to a whopping 9%, and has exactly zero effect on the fact that “coalition” forces were the target in 75% of the attacks.
“The only relevant statistic in that regard is the number of attacks per target.”
right another empty argument from assertion. Completely without merit, but who cares? Shirin says “percent of incidents” is relevant, so it’s relevant. Who needs common sense? Truck bombs, potshots at patrols, same difference, right? Apples and apples. lol.
Shirin your logic is impeccable. those truck bombs were meant to kill coalition invaders and oppressors; the hundreds of innocents they ACTUALLY killed were merely ‘collateral damage.’ It’s raw numbers that count, no not THOSE numbers, THESE numbers.
” a whopping 9%”
the fact that this number is non-zero is strangely of no concern to Shirin. Collaborators! she shrieks.
“For your information, here is the definition of civilian:”
oh me oh my, the argumentum ad dictionarium, last resort of comments thread scoundrels. good thing shirin relies on the people at websters to do her thinking for her. “for your information” shirin, in the context of the geneva conventions and the rules of war, police are indeed civilians. see amnesty international, the united nations and the icrc who will corroborate my reading of the 4th geneva convention, which usage is also employed by the authors of the IBC project. You might fax your dictionary citation over to the war crimes people in the hague but I doubt it will sway anyone.
Here are a few thousand more instances of the oxymoronic ‘civilian police’ usage demanding correction, Shirin. I’d help you with the faxing campaign myself but I have some errands to run this afternoon. Best of luck! I did notice CSIS in there:
http://www.csis.org/isp/wiserpeace_III.pdf
you’d think they know better, considering it’s their study you’re citing!
Vadim,
Your consistent use of sarcam, snotty, completely unjustified ad hominems and nasty innuendos, and out of hand dismissals of my arguments in the place of a reasoned refutation based on facts and logic doesn’t do much for your case – except to suggest that you know very well you don’t have one.
It is very simple, Vadim. If you want to know which group is suffering the most fatalities, injuries, and damage, you count and compare the number of fatalities, injuries and damage to each group. If you want to know which group is being targetted the most, you count and compare the number of attacks per target.
Yet again, Vadim, I caution you against using fatalities and injuries as a measure of which group is being targetted the most unless you are prepared to concede that the so-called “coalition” are targetting civilians big time, since that is the only realistic conclusion that can arise from using that measure.
“Here are a few thousand more instances of the oxymoronic ‘civilian police’ usage demanding correction”
Vadim, one of the problems with googling for an instant comeback is that you have to understand what you have googled. However, in this instance I think if you had just applied a few minutes’ rational thought you would have understood that the reference is to a special designation called “civilian police” as distinct from regular police, who are not civilians. If regular police were civilians there would be no need to coin the term civilian police since it would be redundant.
Actually Shirin, if you google “Iraqi civilian police force” you’ll find many of the same references, including of course the CSIS which is itself the origin of your ludicrous and frankly offensive distinction.
Its remarkable to be lectured on snottiness and afactual argumentation by someone who has made an art form of scare quotes, arbitrary and unfounded assertions and denials, and most every category of logical fallacy known to mankind (including lavish use of ad hominems.)
“If you want to know which group is being targetted the most, you count and compare the number of attacks per target.”
Only if your definition of ‘the most’ were confined to a completely meaningless and arbitrary metric. A car bomb targets hundreds, yet counts as one attack following this asinine line of reasoning. Get a clue.
“since that is the only realistic conclusion that can arise from using that measure.”
bzzzt wrong. Your insurgency-ies-whatever are vastly outkilling the coalition. I encourage anyone bothering to read this exchange to examine the data themselves at the Iraq Body Count database link above. It’s not even close. No one but a depraved individual would persist in making excuses for the suicide bombers ravaging the Iraqi civilian population, pettifogging about percentages of attacks launched. Have you no shame at all?
Of course per Shirin’s warped moral logic regarding: targeting, NONE of the coalition’s “collateral damage” counts at all, since no civilians were targeted!
How much is Karl Rove paying you to troll Helena’s site, Shirin?
Vadim,
Setting aside your continued baseless irrational snotty personal attacks, and pointless snide remarks, The Civilian Police Force designation is made precisely to make a distinction between regular police, who are not civilians, and the Civilian Police Force. If police were indeed civilians, then the term Civilian Police Force would be unnecessary and redundant.
“Your insurgency-ies-whatever are vastly outkilling the coalition.”
1. Other than a childish attempt to be offensive, I do not know why you refer to “my insurgency”. I have never possessed an insurgency, I do not possess an insurgency, and I cannot imagine that I will ever possess an insurgency at any time in the future.
2. You have no evidence to back up your contention that the “insurgency” is outkilling the invasion/occupation forces. While Iraq Body Count performs an invaluable service, the passive method they use has serious limitations and has been proven to always result in an undercount even under the best of conditions and circumstances, and in Iraq we have far from the best conditions and circumstances.
IBC depend mainly on media reports of deaths. The media, nearly all of whom are either confined to the Green Zone or “imbedded” with troops, depend almost entirely on the U.S. military for information. In addition, reporters know very well that they can lose their imbedded status, or be ostracized and otherwise punished if they report the “wrong” things. They have seen it happen to some of their colleagues. The U.S. military are, of course, emphasizing “insurgent” attacks and their results, and underplaying their own operations which are daily, and devastating. Further, the U.S. military are reporting virtually every one of the casualties they cause as “insurgents”, and this is overwhelmingly what the media are reporting.
IBC also uses hospital reports in their count, but it is a fact that only a fraction of those killed in a war zone ever end up in hospitals. This is particularly the case in Iraq where the Americans have consistently attacked and taken over hospitals and medical facilities, largely in order to prevent them from reporting civilian deaths, as they admitted in Falluja and elsewhere. Therefore, you cannot take IBC’s numbers as a definitive count of the total number killed, or of the number killed.
As for your ugly, gratuitous and baseless suggestion that civilians killed as so-called “collateral damage” do not count in my “warped moral logic”, that appears to be the position of those who brush aside the tens of thousands of civilian men, women, children, infants, and elderly the invasion/occupation forces kill. They do this by repeating the mantra that the U.S. does not target civilians, so those deaths are nothing more than an unfortunate by product. It is certainly not my position that civilians killed in attacks on other targets “don’t count”, and your odious suggestion that it is my position has no basis whatsoever.
But that does bring me to another question. Do you apply the same standards to invasion/occupation forces that you do to so-called “insurgents”, or do you employ a double standard? For example, when the U.S., based on a rumour that Saddam might be there, dropped two one ton bombs on a building in the Mansour residential district, they destroyed the surrounding homes, and killed at least 26 civilians, including one entire Christian family. Saddam was not anywhere near there, and they did not kill a single “bad guy”. Since only civilians were killed in that attack, do you agree that they were really targetting civilians? And what about the attack a few weeks later on a convoy in north eastern Iraq, again on a rumour that Saddam Hussein was travelling in the convoy? Again, neither Saddam Hussein nor any other “bad guy” was there, only civilians, the majority of whom were killed or wounded in the attack. So were they targetting civilians in that attack, too, since only civilians were in the convoy?
Shirin, I’m heartened to see you attempting [in your childlike and inept way] to engage my analogy. Obviously bombs targeting Saddam Hussein aren’t meant to kill civilians, and yes they’d be irrelevant if your bizarre moral calculus were applied to coalition activity, which is part of why your reasoning is so completely specious.
The other reason is that no military forces are targeted by the [current, ongoing] campaign of carbombing, unlike your examples from two years ago. which coalition figure could have been the target of the car bomb at Hilla (150 dead) or the “home of Hasan Bagdash, Shiite community leader” (35 dead), or the markets in Tikrit & Suwayra (38 and 31 killed respectively)??? FYI I have not once in any of my posts attempted to defend coalition bombing of civilian areas, why do you persist in defending far worse (in intent and effect) and ongoing atrocities described in recent headlines????
IBC depend mainly on media reports of deaths
1st of all, not true as a simple matter of fact. MOST deaths are from morgue and hospital data, not from journalists. Second, so what????? Are you contesting the death tolls reported in the specific incidents I’ve described? Do you have first-hand knowledge of recent coalition bombing rivaling the Hilla bomb? If you do, cite your own sources, by all means. Not that it diminishes the barbarity of those carbombings one iota as you seem to think.
Vadim,
Apparently you have never taken the time to read the pages concerning the method used for the Iraq Body Count Project. Have a look there and you’ll learn that media issued in English language are the only source (you’ll find a list of those sites following the above link). Here is what they say further :
“For a source to be considered acceptable to this project it must comply with the following standards: (1) site updated at least daily; (2) all stories separately archived on the site, with a unique url (see Note 1 below); (3) source widely cited or referenced by other sources; (4) English Language site; (5) fully public (preferably free) web-access.
The project relies on the professional rigour of the approved reporting agencies. It is assumed that any agency that has attained a respected international status operates its own rigorous checks before publishing items (including, where possible, eye-witness and confidential sources). By requiring that two independent agencies publish a report before we are willing to add it to the count, we are premising our own count on the self-correcting nature of the increasingly inter-connected international media network.”
This method has an advantage : it counts casualties, what the Americans refused to do, and it does it in a way the Westerners can hardly contest. So we know that there are at least between 22’787 and 25’814 Iraqi deaths due to the war initiated by the Americans. This is about eight times as much as the 9/11 casualties.
I write at least, because the disadvantage of this method is that it’s almost sure that a high number of casualties aren’t known to western reporters and don’t make it to the western media. Hence by nature, this method tends to underestimate the number of victimes.
A scientific survey published in the The Lancet and covering the period between january 2002 and september 2004 has evaluated the number of Iraqis deaths due to the war amounts to about 100’000 (at a time when the Iraq Body Count evaluated them to 16’000). The survey also demonstrated that most of the casulaties were caused by the US military firepower. Given the recent increase of attacks which occurred since last september, I don’t dare to imagine how many they are now. (full pdf text– you have to subscribe to get it, but subscription is free)
BTW, the rules of engagement are so trigger happy, that PM Jafaari has recently protested against these rules to the US and asked for their revision.
Vadim, do you have any idea how pathetic it makes you– and by extension, your arguments– look when you refer to a fellow commenter who’s calmly been trying to make some serious points here as writing “in your childlike and inept way”.
Perhaps it’s been a while since you read the guidelines for commenters? In numbers 3-5 they specify:
3. If you disagree with something that someone else has written, why not just tell us what you believe and leave it at that? Everyone will hear your wisdom better if you aren’t wasting words trying to show that other people are wrong.
4. If you strongly feel you need to speak directly to something that someone else wrote, be gentle and courteous. Remember that all the people who comtribute here are real people, not cardboard pastiches… When in doubt, please err on the side of excessive courtesy.
5. Practice the valuable art of speaking across worldviews. If you want people to read your comments with an open mind and some empathy, show that you have read what they have previously written in that same spirit.
“The survey also demonstrated that most of the casulaties were caused by the US military firepower.”
The survey claimed no such thing (you are including Fallujah, whose results were excluded from the study’s conclusions), and the study itself doesnt distinguish civilians from combatants. Please read it more carefully. A subsequent, far broader UN study specifically addressing civilians squares with both the IBC and the Iraqi MoH figures (ard 24,000 dead). The Lancet study has been thoroughly dissected in the blogosphere, and several of the conclusions stated in the editorial summary are demonstrably false. see more here:
http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/002578.html
note that the study’s blogospheric defenders (notably Tim Lambert, Daniel Davies) and the study authors acknowledge that ‘100k dead civilians, mostly caused by coalition bombing’ is incorrect.
The largest bulk entries in the IBC database are morgue statistics (w354c, 354d, etc). AFP , Al Jazeera , Jordan times and several other non-anglophone sources with translated websites are part of the IBC journo pool, but your point there escapes me altogether. I’m citing the IBC not as a comprehensive account of civilian casualties, merely a useful measure of the insurgency’s choices of target, its implicit barbarism and disregard for Iraqi civilian life. I’d be interested in seeing recent instances of coalition bombing from any surce that approach the indiscriminate murderousness of insurgency suicide bomb attacks, or that have killed nearly as many people, though even that wouldnt detract from my point. my comments address only current and ongoing attacks. & the coalition even at its deadliest did not as its policy bomb civilian centers with the express purpose of murdering dozens of non-combatants at once.
Pardon my rudeness Helena, but I find apologists for the mass murder of civilians and ‘collaborators’ viscerally repellent, as should you. I also view inane pettifoggery (the sickeningly disingenuous ‘percent of attack’ quibble, claiming that police arent protected by the geneva convention) as something other than ‘serous points.’
“bombs targeting Saddam Hussein aren’t meant to kill civilians…”
Are you suggesting, Vadim, that when, in an attempt to kill one man who may or may not have been there, the U.S.military dropped two one ton bombs on a building in the middle of a residential area – a building that is surrounded by family homes, and businesses owned and frequented by civilians – they did not know that it was a sure thing they would be killing tens of civilians – at least? By what kind of logic can you say that those bombs were not meant to kill civilians, given that it was inevitable that they would kill tens of civilians, with no guarantee that Saddam was even there (he obviously was not)?
“and yes they’d be irrelevant if your bizarre moral calculus were applied to coalition activity, which is part of why your reasoning is so completely specious.”
You can repeat this rubbish as many times as you want to, and it will remain rubbish.
“The other reason is that no military forces are targeted by the [current, ongoing] campaign of carbombing”
That is simply untrue. The overwhelming majority of the “insurgent” attacks do target military forces.
“which coalition figure could have been the target of the car bomb at Hilla (150 dead) or the “home of Hasan Bagdash, Shiite community leader” (35 dead), or the markets in Tikrit & Suwayra (38 and 31 killed respectively)???”
Why do you keep recycling these particular attacks, Vadim, as if they are representative of all, or even the majority of attacks. They are not.
“FYI I have not once in any of my posts attempted to defend coalition bombing of civilian areas”
No one has suggested you have.
“why do you persist in defending far worse (in intent and effect) and ongoing atrocities described in recent headlines????”
I have defended nothing. I have merely been stating, and restating, and re restating some facts and realities.
Shirin: “IBC depend mainly on media reports of deaths”
Vadim: “1st of all, not true as a simple matter of fact. MOST deaths are from morgue and hospital data, not from journalists.”
1. No one has said they are from journalists. Please see Christiane’s post on the subject.
2. Did you even read what I wrote? I said they use reports from hospitals (and morgues, which are benerally in hospitals). I also explained that in any war situation the majority of fatalities never make it to a hospital (or into a morgue). I also pointed out that this is particularly true in Iraq where U.S. forces attack, and sometimes destroy medical facilities, or take them over, largely for the cynical purpose of preventing them from reporting on civilian casualties, as they stated clearly in Falluja and other places they have attacked. In addition, U.S. troops regularly attack ambulances, and prevent medical and rescue personnel from going to the aid of wounded people, and from gathering the bodies from the streets and houses.
“Are you contesting the death tolls reported in the specific incidents I’ve described?”
I am demonstrating to you that the totals reported by IBC undercount the true number of fatalities, and are also likely skewed. This is something that IBC themselves acknowledge. It is also well known that the passive methods of counting used by IBC always result in an undercount.
“Not that it diminishes the barbarity of those carbombings one iota as you seem to think.”
Vadim, why do you feel the need to constantly make these baseless attributions? Do you think it strengthens your weak arguments to do so? It doesn’t.
“The survey claimed no such thing”
Oh yes, it did. Have you even read the report in The Lancet?
“after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children.”
“Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces
accounted for most violent deaths.”
“(you are including Fallujah, whose results were excluded from the study’s conclusions)”
No, she is not including Fallujah.
“and the study itself doesnt distinguish civilians from combatants.”
The study found that “Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children.” Are you suggesting that the women and children who make up the majority of individuals reportedly killed by invasion/occupation forces were not civilians?
“ Please read it more carefully.”
You might consider taking your own advice.
“A subsequent, far broader UN study specifically addressing civilians squares with both the IBC and the Iraqi MoH figures (ard 24,000 dead).”
The UN study measured different things than the Lancet study did, and covered a time period only 2/3 that of the period of the Lancet study. In fact, if you adjust for the shorter time period of the UNDP study, and for the fact that it measured only a subset of war related deaths, it actually tends to confirm the findings of the Lancet study.
“The Lancet study has been thoroughly dissected in the blogosphere, and several of the conclusions stated in the editorial summary are demonstrably false.”
No, they are not. They are, in fact, fully supported by the data. Since Christiane has the best professional qualifications to address this I will leave it for her if she chooses to address it.
One consistent reality about the study’s critics is that they did not understand any aspect of what they were criticizing, and many of them clearly had not even bothered to read it.
“note that the study’s blogospheric defenders (notably Tim Lambert, Daniel Davies) and the study authors acknowledge that ‘100k dead civilians, mostly caused by coalition bombing’ is incorrect.”
So what? No one who has read and understood the report of the study makes any such claim.
“The largest bulk entries in the IBC database are morgue statistics (w354c, 354d, etc).”
Completely irrelevant.
“AFP , Al Jazeera , Jordan times and several other non-anglophone sources with translated websites are part of the IBC journo pool”
Also completely irrelevant.
Vadim, passive methods of data collection are known, based on experience and studies, to undercount. IBC freely acknowledges this fact, so why can’t you?
“I’m citing the IBC not as a comprehensive account of civilian casualties, merely a useful measure of the insurgency’s choices of target
The IBC tells us nothing whatsoever about the “insurgency’s” choices of target.
“its implicit barbarism and disregard for Iraqi civilian life.”
And what does the Americans’ dropping two one ton bombs in a residential neighborhood in order to maybe get one man who may or may not be there tell us about the Americans’ barbarism and disregard for Iraqi civilian life? What does the near complete destruction of a major city, tell us about the Americans’ barbarism and disregard for Iraqi civilian life?
“the coalition even at its deadliest did not as its policy bomb civilian centers with the express purpose of murdering dozens of non-combatants at once.”
Are you really that out of touch with reality?!
“Completely irrelevant.”
Shirin, you should do your fellow posters the courtesy of reading their comments before rudely chiming in like this. My comments were a direct rebuttal to christiane, not to you. luckily we seem to agree on these points, as you note : “No one who has read and understood the report of the study makes any such claim.”
but christiane wrote: ” The survey also demonstrated that most of the casulaties were caused by the US military firepower.”
and christiane’s comment here is false. most of the ‘100,000’ deaths tallied in the lancet did not result from us military firepower.
she also wrote : “at a time when the Iraq Body Count evaluated them to 16’000”
The IBC and the Lancet counted different things. Although Christiane is I guess some kind of expert whose credentials are undoubtedly awe inspiring, she makes the same error that shirin attributes to know-nothing web hacks. maybe you two should take it outside.
“Vadim, passive methods of data collection are known, based on experience and studies, to undercount.”
and for the 1000th time its irrelevant. I’m sure they are undercounting insurgent related violence as well. I’m not indicting the IBC nor attempting to excuse coalition bombing, quite the opposite. yet the coalition is not currently engaged in any large scale civilian-bombing campaigns that ordinary mortals can read about.
“Are you really that out of touch with reality?!”
Shirin, do you have any idea how pathetic it makes you– and by extension, your arguments– look when you refer to a fellow commenter who’s calmly been trying to make some serious points here as writing “Are you really that out of touch with reality?”. Tsk tsk.
No, they are not. They are, in fact, fully supported by the data.
shirin, I see your name is all over these lambert threads where this very point was discussed and confirmed many times, even by richard garfield himself. why are you pretending not to know the truth now?
Garfield: “Majority of deaths from the air’ was mistated as being based on non-falluja experience. It is methodologically interesting and important to try to figure out what is going on with a representative but very small sample. On this point, I combined data from non-falluja area and the total mortality experience, including falluja. My mistake.”
shirin, before you were misrepresenting the conclusions of the lancet study, you asked a semi-interesting question that merits a serious answer:
q: “By what kind of logic can you say that those bombs were not meant to kill civilians, given that it was inevitable that they would kill tens of civilians,”
a: their sole intent was not to kill civilians (which by no means exonerates the coalition). a bomb placed in a market or a mosque, one that disables no military target, kills NO soldiers at all yet causes the deaths of 100+ innocents, clearly has no tactical purpose OTHER than to kill civilians. capeesh?
A refresher course in the laws of war is clearly necessary here:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Christiane, I would draw your attention to page 4 of the Lancet study summary, wherein ‘violent deaths’ are broken down by subcategory. Women and children (excluding fallujah) account for 2 and 4 of a total of 21 in this category, versus 13 men. 2/3 of violent deaths overall occurred in the discarded fallujah cluster. Only 21/89 deaths excluding fallujah were violent (see p. 5), or 24%.
Incidentally, only 9 of those 21 violent deaths were attributed to coalition forces, making ‘Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces’ complete nonsense unless fallujah is counted. without fallujah of course there are only 32 clusters, not 33.
I notice Shirin is no longer around to defend her fib. what a pity.
i come from best search engine http://www.google.com