Interesting NYT article about some of the issues involved in fixing the appalling ecological damage done by the Hussein regime as part of his attacks on the Marsh Arabs. Apparently, the marshes will never fully recover, but there are things that can be done and people are finally getting a chance to do them; the trick will be to reintegrate the original inhabitants, many of whom have shown an interest in a somewhat better standard of living than before. Tragically, this may not be much of a problem; the Marsh Arab population suffered greatly under Hussein’s vengeful regime. More fled than dead (and thank God for small favors), but add that crime to Saddam’s bitter legacy all the same.
(Via Oxblog)
Is that part of the new justification for the war?
We invaded Iraq to bring freedom and democracy and to restore the marsh damage Saddam caused?
I really get a kick out of hearing the right whingers talk about the Marsh Arabs as though they were some endangered species of salamander that can’t survive out of its natural marshland habitat. Bwah!
“Is that part of the new justification for the war?”
No, it’s been a justification for a while, as the HRW report linked above makes clear. Not the first time I’ve noted Iraqi humanitarian issues on this blog, either.
Moe
PS: Posting rules are up and to the right, Robert McClelland: peruse them before you comment again.
Considering how tough it was to get the endangered species act originally passed do you really think the American people and congress would have supported invading Iraq to protect a marsh and it’s inhabitants’ from peril?
I have little respect for Chalabi and his ends-justify-the-means attitude about how we got to Iraq.
The motivation for our invasion cannot be retroactively redefined nor justified.
Misleading congress and the American people is not a good precedent no matter the presumed justness of the cause.
Credibility does matter. Here and abroad.