From the Boston Globe, via Steve Gilliard:
“The US military is drawing up plans to keep insurgents from regaining control of this battle-scarred city, but returning residents may find that the measures make Fallujah look more like a police state than the democracy they have been promised.
Under the plans, troops would funnel Fallujans to so-called citizen processing centers on the outskirts of the city to compile a database of their identities through DNA testing and retina scans. Residents would receive badges displaying their home addresses that they must wear at all times. Buses would ferry them into the city, where cars, the deadliest tool of suicide bombers, would be banned.
Marine commanders working in unheated, war-damaged downtown buildings are hammering out the details of their paradoxical task: Bring back the 300,000 residents in time for January elections without letting in insurgents, even though many Fallujans were among the fighters who ruled the city until the US assault drove them out in November, and many others cooperated with fighters out of conviction or fear.”
Here comes the really, really bad idea:
“One idea that has stirred debate among Marine officers would require all men to work, for pay, in military-style battalions. Depending on their skills, they would be assigned jobs in construction, waterworks, or rubble-clearing platoons”.
First torture, then the use of family members as hostages, now forced labor. What will we think of next?
Gilliard says that forced labor is a war crime. As best I can tell, this is wrong: the Geneva Conventions (4th Convention, 3.3.50) say that “the Occupying Power may not compel protected persons to work unless they are over eighteen years of age, and then only on work which is necessary either for the needs of the army of occupation, or for the public utility services, or for the feeding, sheltering, clothing, transportation or health of the population of the occupied country.” As far as I can see, construction, water works and rubble-clearing would qualify. But the fact that it isn’t illegal doesn’t mean that it isn’t a terrible idea. Offering people jobs would be a good idea. And since we have spent only a small fraction of the money allotted for reconstruction, we could surely afford it. But forcing people to work is an insult to their dignity, and moreover would prevent the residents of Fallujah from even beginning to develop the sorts of normal economic and community life that might eventually help them to find a non-violent way out of all this.
(To forestall inevitable criticism: the reasons for caring about insults to Fallujans’ dignity are several: first, it’s wrong to insult people’s dignity without a very good reason, and second, insulting it gratuitously just makes our lives that much more difficult.)
As far as I can tell, the reasons for doing this turn on the sort of psychological views that one might pick up from reading really bad books on dog training:
“”You have to say, ‘Here are the rules,’ and you are firm and fair. That radiates stability,” said Lieutenant Colonel Dave Bellon, intelligence officer for the First Regimental Combat Team, the Marine regiment that took the western half of Fallujah during the US assault and expects to be based downtown for some time.
Bellon asserted that previous attempts to win trust from Iraqis suspicious of US intentions had telegraphed weakness by asking, ” ‘What are your needs? What are your emotional needs?’ All this Oprah [stuff],” he said. “They want to figure out who the dominant tribe is and say, ‘I’m with you.’ We need to be the benevolent, dominant tribe.”
For the record, in most actual animal dominance hierarchies, dominance is established by winning fights, but maintained not by coercion but by calm leadership. Good alpha males who are secure in their leadership do not bother threatening and coercing their subordinates; they simply assume that they are in charge, project a sense of calm command, and inspire trust. It’s weak leaders who have to strut around showing everyone who’s boss; strong leaders assume that it’s obvious. Their subordinates, even those who have been personally defeated by them, tend to be calmer and happier for their presence; subordinates of weak leaders, by contrast, tend to be anxious, since they aren’t sure of the hierarchy and don’t fully trust their leaders to carry out their responsibilities. If, for some reason, we want to use insights gained from wolf packs and troops of chimpanzees in governing the human beings who inhabit Iraq, the time to do it would have been immediately after the fall of Baghdad, when we could have established confidence in our leadership by maintaining order and providing benefits to those around us. As it is, in these terms we have already established ourselves as weak and unreliable alphas, and throwing our weight around in an effort to intimidate won’t help.
Forced labor is a really bad idea.
Well, the US has already committed torture and mass murder in Iraq, why not add slavery to the list?
“Gilliard says that forced labor is a war crime. As best I can tell, this is wrong: ”
Heck, I don’t what our legal status is, it has always been unclear. Are we still an “occupying power”, an ally of the Iraqi Gov’t, or Allawi’s hired guns? If under the Geneva Conventions we have the right to “compel” certain kinds of labor, what steps may be taken in case of resistance? Shooting the civilian slackers? Imprisonment?
We are most likely, both in theorey and as viewed by the Iraqis, tools of Allawi and others, in which case Geneva does not apply.
We are so far past moral considerations in Iraq that I can only consider what will achieve whatever goals we and certain elite Iraqis have in mind, and efficiency. Since I really don’t know the goals I can’t judge efficency.
It’s a bad idea, but (playing devil’s advocate) it addresses what I think is a real problem — in an area where the US is seen as the enemy by a lot of people, there’s probably a strong disincentive to sign up voluntarily for US-sponsored employment. Requiring every able body to work allows people to take those jobs without being seen as collaboraters.
without being seen as collaboraters.
or even worse, as collaborators.
“mass murder” – please see the False Choices thread.
troops would funnel Fallujans to so-called citizen processing centers on the outskirts of the city to compile a database of their identities through DNA testing and retina scans. Residents would receive badges displaying their home addresses that they must wear at all times.
Aside from being morally repugnant, I doubt the effectiveness of this plan. The country’s in chaos, most Americans are barricaded in the Green Zone, yet the occupation can make 300,000 refugees submit patiently to DNA tests and retinal scans? Right. This is as ass-hatted as anything I’ve heard yet.
I caught part of Red Dawn on TV this weekend. Wow. It sure takes on a whole new resonance these days.
Dianne,
“Well, the US has already committed torture and mass murder in Iraq, why not add slavery to the list?”
Maybe you, Jes and Jade could start your own site?
I think http://www.IhateAmerica.com and http://www.AmericaIsTheRootOfAllEvil.com are still available.
wwc: I think http://www.IhateAmerica.com and http://www.AmericaIsTheRootOfAllEvil.com are still available.
You should have checked on WHOIS:
Domain Name: ihateamerica.com
Created on ………….Fri Mar 21 14:06:52 2003
Expires on ………….Mon Mar 21 14:06:52 2005
Record last updated on .Wed Jun 02 15:51:44 2004
However, WHOIS tells me that “No match found for ‘AmericaIsTheRootOfAllEvil.com'” so your current score is 1 out of a possible score of 2. But I suspect you were right the second time by accident.
I’m trying to think of some way to respond to Hilzoy’s very solid post and wwc’s little suggestion regarding various folks getting their own websites, but even the fairly comprehensive posting rules fail to address precisely how I might be punished for my response, because banning would clearly be inadequate.
Silence.
wwc — was that directed to me? For the record, I don’t hate America at all, and I can’t think what in my post would make you think I did. It would have been far better to try to make the case that I’m wrong in what I say than to just insult me. The same goes, of course, if you were referring to someone else.
hilzoy: wwc — was that directed to me?
No, s/he was addressing Dianne’s hyperbolic comment.
hilzoy, wwc was clearly addressing Diane, Jesurgislac and Jadegold, although Jadegold did not comment on this particular post. hilzoy, you lay out these lengthy, reasoned arguments, and the usual suspects hang on to your coat tails with their hateful and debunked harangs. I’m still hoping Obsidian Wings will reach out from the left midleft to the right midright and lead the blogosphere toward the wonderful accomplishments we’re capable of. As far as Fallujah is concerned it would seem some genuine out of the box thinking will be necessary. Why let anyone back in? If that’s an alternative, turn them all away, or how about only letting those back in that will help rebuild. We’ll pay them to do it. If they don’t want to participate, they can drift off somewhere else. No sense having the city fill
back up with idle malcontents sucking the remaining life out of the city. FDR would be proud.
lead the blogosphere toward the wonderful accomplishments we’re capable of.
Just out of curiosity, who do you mean by ‘we’? And exactly who are the implicit ‘them’ who are going to utilize this ‘out of the box thinking’?
“…who do you mean by ‘we’?…”
Me, my drinking buddies and the rest of humankind. Whadaya say Lib, you on board?
“… who are the implicit ‘them’…”
How about anyone genuinely interested in a successful continuation of the city fka Fallujah.
Sorry Lib, you bring out the flip in me.
Whadaya say Lib, you on board?
No thanks. You seek to exclude the viewpoints of Jes, Jadegold, and Diane, labelling them as “the usual suspects [who] hang on to your [Hilzoy’s] coat tails with their hateful and debunked harangs”. You may not like the point of view they bring to the table, but Jes and Jadegold in particular have provided ample citations and information. You may not like the information they bring and you certainly disagree with their view of those facts, but trying to suck up to Hilzoy in an attempt to ostracize others is pretty pathetic. Or perhaps it is your attempt at humor, a sense which I confess, I do not understand at all.
I would also point out that suggesting that Jadegold, Jes and Dianne are excluded from the group of “anyone genuinely interested in a successful continuation of the city fka Fallujah” is simply a more subtle way of saying that they are supporting the terrorists.
I’m assuming that ‘fka’ means ‘formerly known as’. What is the new name going to be?
Blogbudsman, I believe you owe hilzoy an apology. I don’t have a policeman’s badge on this blog, but I do recognize an attempted insult when I see it. Hilzoy’s the very soul of reason, and that’s way before we bring you into the picture for comparison. You’re much less likely to convince using insult than you are with logic and reason.
If you were drunk-blogging, though, best sober up and try not to comment until you’ve done so.
Oh, and you also owe JadeGold and Jesurgislac apologies as well. One or both of them may very well have annoyed you, but being annoyed isn’t an excuse for bad behavior, here. You’ll note there isn’t an exclusion clause for “but they did it first” in the posting rules.
DNA testing? What is that supposed to accomplish? It’s not as if you can just stop someone and get a DNA sample to verify their identity instantly. It takes time and careful procedures, chain of custody records, etc.
And what if you could? Are you just going to close the city to non-Fallujans? Leaving all else aside, this smacks of desperation.
I miss Moe, enough said.
Me, too, Timmy.
Well, geez, who doesn’t?
Likewise.
And when will Edward be back?
Me too.
Can we have an “I Miss Moe” open thread?
Blogbudsman: Why let anyone back in?
Assuming that this is a serious question:
Because Fallujah is their city.
If that’s an alternative, turn them all away, or how about only letting those back in that will help rebuild. We’ll pay them to do it. If they don’t want to participate, they can drift off somewhere else. No sense having the city fill back up with idle malcontents sucking the remaining life out of the city.
Would this have been your reaction after 9/11, if you were a resident of New York City? Only allow those back in that will “help rebuild” – allow no one to live there who isn’t willing to be put to building labor? Children and all, presumably. Teachers. Medical personel. No point having anyone work in a hospital for Iraqis: the US have bombed them all.
The attack on Fallujah was ultimately stupid and pointless. You cannot “win” against a native resistance by destroying a country city by city. That the US has “won” is unsurprising: but it was a Pyrrhic victory. Any attempt to capitalize on it by forcing returning Fallujah citizens to live under a police state will only serve as a further means of defeat for the US occupation of Iraq.
“The attack on Fallujah was ultimately stupid and pointless. You cannot “win” against a native resistance by destroying a country city by city. That the US has “won” is unsurprising: but it was a Pyrrhic victory. Any attempt to capitalize on it by forcing returning Fallujah citizens to live under a police state will only serve as a further means of defeat for the US occupation of Iraq.”
So that pretty much wraps it up. Slarti, you’ve totally confused me in regard to hilzoy. At least Lib references lines in the discussion he questions. I’m not sure calling me a drunk because I’m disgusted with Jes’ constant, hateful attacks against my government from ‘over there’advances any discussion. In fact, I was just adding my opinion, supporting posts of others.
It’s become obvious where this blog has landed. Moe was probably tired of being the token facade of balance. I’ve enjoyed many of the arguments presented here and am better for it. A few of you are just uninteresting broken records. Have a nice day. (No, he really means for you to have a nice day.)
Oh yeah, Jes, you asked a question. I was thinking New Iraq City. Nice ring to it, don’t you think.
Blogbuds: I’m not sure calling me a drunk because I’m disgusted with Jes’ constant, hateful attacks
The point is – if you ever read this – that if you think I’m wrong, show me. Specifically, explain what the strategic advantages, short term and long term, of the attack on Fallujah were and are. Explain how the Bush administration’s strategies in Iraq work, if you find them so defensible. The useful way to respond to criticism is not to attack the person criticising, but to show – with cites, or with logic and reason – why that person is wrong.
I think it’s called an “ad hominem attack.”
The thing that appears to have sparked the “you crazy liberals hate America” kneejerk this time was the “hyperbole” that America has committed torture and mass murder. Assuming for a second that we can call all the deaths in Iraq “collateral damage” or “that’s what you get from war” or something trite like that, yeah, the label “mass murder” could probably be disputed. “Mass death” would be accurate though.
As for torture, though, um, Abu Ghraib?
I’m actually having trouble finding, y’know, the falsehood. And if pointing out true things about America that aren’t very nice makes you “Anti-American,” then I’m afraid that the right’s trip down the rabbit hole must be complete. I can only ask them, I feel, why do you hate America so? Why do you prefer Communist Russia to the Land of the Free?
Ahh, that feels good.
Wow, interesting reactions. I didn’t see anything insulting towards hilzoy in blogsbudsman’s post; as for calling J, J, & D’s comments “hateful”, well, that’s over the top, but hardly worse than some of Jadegold’s attacks.
The useful way to respond to criticism is not to attack the person criticising, but to show – with cites, or with logic and reason – why that person is wrong.
There’s another way to respond to it, and that’s to consider the possibility that it’s accurate or that there are other valid ways of looking at an issue besides your own. It’s a shame that so many threads here seem to turn into fights instead of discussions because people are unwilling to keep an open mind.
KenB: There’s another way to respond to it, and that’s to consider the possibility that it’s accurate or that there are other valid ways of looking at an issue besides your own.
That’s true, too.
The Bad Ideas Get Worse
You can’t really blame the soldiers, because they’re being asked to solve problems that are pretty insoluble. Still, the fact that all solutions are guaranteed to be crap doesn’t really excuse the fact that the one they picked is, well, crap.
as for calling J, J, & D’s comments “hateful”, well, that’s over the top, but hardly worse than some of Jadegold’s attacks.
Given that only one of them posted in the thread, it’s a lot worse, I think.
If you think Jadegold or Jes have engaged in ‘hateful’ posts, call them on it. But please don’t argue that playing threadjack when they haven’t even posted in the thread is appropriate behavior. Doing that is a much more likely cause of fights than an unwillingness to keep an open mind.
Also a really, really bad idea: Lying about Pat Tillman’s death.
*Purported constant, hateful attacks countered with ad hominem may as well go uncountered. The rules are, be civil to each other. There’s not a rule that you have to be civil to our government. Believe me, I’m not any more comfortable with contempt directed toward our government, but you’ve got to make your case.
I also didn’t call you a drunk; I advanced the saving grace that you might be inebriated as indicated here:
liberal japonicus hasn’t merited any disrespect, either, yet you referred to him as “Lib”, which was clearly contemptuous. Unless y’all are buddies in real life, in which case I withdraw the charge.
Maybe. Maybe he was just tired. As Ned’s Atomic Dustbin once noted:
JG’s actually doing a swell job of self-restraint so far. Compared, at least, with past performance. Certainly bad behavior cannot be excused by alleged bad behavior by others, on other threads. If you have a specific complaint, you ought to email the blog at the address given in the upper-leftish part of the page. If the antics of others merit action, that’s the path to take.
Not really, but it certainly didn’t help his case much.
Play nice, people. If people are saying things that annoy you, either counter civilly, challenge the logic civilly, or count to ten a few dozen times before sending off that retaliatory post. And keep the posting rules in mind.
*Disclaimer: I’m still not the blog police. Still, I hate seeing the escalation of uncivil behavior. It takes at least two to escalate, remember.
Oops; I haven’t checked back on this thread since I last posted here. But: I really don’t want to get into the posting rules and all that, not on a morning which is (where I am) already gloomy and dark, but I would like to implore everyone not to get into personal attacks, at all. People’s motives are unknown to us; speculating on them is an interesting thing to do in the privacy of one’s own home, but in my experience almost never adds anything to discussion. (The ‘almost’ to make room for genuinely respectful questions offered in a genuinely constructive spirit.)
Likewise, one-liners like wwc’s original comment strike me as unlikely to add anything. (At least, if we distinguish one-line retorts — which is what I meant — from genuinely funny jokes. One distinguishing feature being whether you can imagine your opponents in the argument laughing at them.)
The whole point here is to try to, well, engage people who disagree with us, and try to find our way to a discussion that maintains civility without requiring that anyone mute the depth of his or her commitments.
Also: Slart: you do, actually, have a policeman’s badge here. It took me a while before I stopped feeling like too much of a newbie to use mine, but after a bit I realized that it was helpful to use it when needed, as long as I was careful.
The central motivating force of the necon Right is reversing history. The war in Iraq has provided the Right with a “re-do” of Vietnam. They are acting out their dreams of how Vietnam could have been won, and they’re using the same tactics.
If you look at Iraq from this point of view, what “victory” in Iraq will look like becomes clearer: a South Vietnam-style dictatorship that is a reliable client-state to the US, where the population is kept docile, and the real business of the government is cronyism.
Pointing out that Vietnam tactics didn’t work is irrelevant. Neo-cons take it as a matter of faith that the only reason we lost in Vietnam was lack of “political will,” as manifested by politicians’ paying attention to critical news coverage and a disillusioned public.
The neo-cons won’t have those troubles this time, since hardly anyone in the Republican Party cares what the news reveals or what the public thinks. (What Democrats think is irrelevant.)
Anything else you know about neocon thought, CaseyL? It sure would help to have a direct pipeline into the minds of the reformed liberals.
I can’t possibly defend myself of all you’ve accused me of here. Using ‘Lib’ instead of spelling out his signature was simple expedience. We’re not buddies, but easily could be. Jesurgislac repeats over and over, post after post, that President Bush has lied. There may have been a cite somewhere along the line, but it had to be unconvincing to most. It’s disheartening and tiring to hear someone call your country’s leader a liar at every turn. Disagree. Disagree passionately. Disagreement is NOT anti-American and shame on those (of us) who hint otherwise. I’ve never seen anything proving our President has lied, and proving it certainly has been attempted in every way. What am I supposed to cite? History may conclude we were wrong. And in fact what we’re trying to do may not succeed. Opine on! But the liar, liar meme is too painful to passively accept day after day. And Slartibartfast, I am not being uncivil. I feel fairly comfortable in the kitchen.
wwc: If I hated America and wanted to destroy it, I’d vote Republican and support Bush’s every war blindly. I’m not a diplomat and I’m sorry if my sometimes sarcastic style of posting offends you, but claiming that people you disagree with must hate America is really a way of trying to shut them up without listening to their arguments. It isn’t worthy of you. Why not try arguing your position instead. Perhaps slavery was a bit of an overstatement since there is no clear evidence that the forced labor is meant to be lifelong. Perhaps indentured servitude would be a better description. But it moral to force people into indentured servitude just because they happened to be born in Iraq?
“Assuming for a second that we can call all the deaths in Iraq “collateral damage” or “that’s what you get from war” or something trite like that, yeah, the label “mass murder” could probably be disputed. “Mass death” would be accurate though.”
I always thought a “murder” was a death caused by an attack by one person on another, where the person attacking intended to cause the death of the other or the attack was of such a serious nature that it was obvious to any person that it would lead to death. What do you think a large bomb exploding nearby or high velocity bullet does to a person? I suppose you can claim that it is not murder because it was done as part of a war and the rules are different there, but that argument seems kind of weak to me. Maybe there are situations where the killing is justified (ie attempting to repel an invasion), but the dead are still dead, regardless of the excuse and deliberately killing someone is, to me at least, still murder no matter what the excuse.
Blogbuds: Jesurgislac repeats over and over, post after post, that President Bush has lied.
Yes: well, it’s true. Cite. It may get boring to you – but every time I read news about the war in Iraq, it brings back the fact that Bush has never yet made a true statement about why he invaded.
It’s disheartening and tiring to hear someone call your country’s leader a liar at every turn.
It is disheartening and tiring to be reminded at every turn of the news that every reason Bush gave for war with Iraq turned out to be a lie. The war with Iraq is disheartening and tiring for a lot of other reasons, too, of course: but I’m beginning to be convinced that the root cause of its public failure is because at no point was the Bush administration publicly honest about why they wanted the US to attack and occupy Iraq. If the leader and instigator of the venture is consistently lying about why the venture was proposed, how can the venture succeed?
And in fact what we’re trying to do may not succeed.
I have no idea what Bush is trying to do in Iraq. He’s never given an honest explanation, so how can I know? It may be that what he wants is a broken country with a dozen permanent US military bases – in which case, what he wants, he may get.
“If the leader and instigator of the venture is consistently lying about why the venture was proposed, how can the venture succeed?”
How does anything ever get done then?
My guess is that the central reason behind the invasion was to establish a replacement for the lost bases in Saudia Arabia. In the unlikely event that in 5-10 years we are manning Iraqi bases, I think I’ll say the venture was successful, even if the country was lied into it. (A more acceptable relationship with the Sauds would help convince me.)
I think I’ll say the venture was successful, even if the country was lied into it.
Is this an acceptable way of doing business? IOW, if you understand you cannot gain popular support for some initiative by telling the truth about its objectives–is it really acceptable to lie about it?
Rilkefan: How does anything ever get done then?
Sometimes people come up with good ideas, and are able to convince other people that they are good ideas, without lying about what their purpose is, or what their motivations are.
Is it your contention that no politician can get anything done without lying about (a) what they intend to do and (b) why they want to do it? Does this apply to everyone else, too?
In the unlikely event that in 5-10 years we are manning Iraqi bases, I think I’ll say the venture was successful, even if the country was lied into it.
You know, I think words cannot express how repugnant I find this view. But since Blogsbudsman finds the idea that President Bush is a liar as repugnant as I do, I’ll let him use his eloquence on you. 😉
Sometimes people come up with good ideas, and are able to convince other people that they are good ideas, without lying about what their purpose is, or what their motivations are.
To be clear, politicians certainly aren’t above shading the truth or stretching it a bit in favor of their agenda. But outright lying is unacceptable.
And let’s be abundantly clear on one item: when you are committing US troops to harm’s way, there isn’t an excuse for not telling the pure, unvarnished truth.
THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS!!!
ONLY THE WEAK WILLED CANNOT SEE THIS!!!
HISTORY WILL SHOW THAT AMERICA DOES WHAT IT NEEDS TO, IN ORDER TO FULLFILL OUR HISTORICAL CALLING AND DESTINY!!!
FREEDOM IS ON THE MARCH…DON’T LET THE BOOTS STAMP YOU INTO A HUMAN STAIN!!!
“I have no idea what Bush is trying to do in Iraq. He’s never given an honest explanation, so how can I know?”
This is not a new problem in politics. If you had to deal with Napoleon or Bismarck you wouldn’t suspend judgement until they obligingly proffered an honest explanation. In order to help people who have to play the wicked game of power politics, Machiavelli wrote a couple of wicked books. The basic idea is: just assume that rulers always exploit the power they already have in order to get more. This is what ignoramuses call a conspiracy theory. Students of politics think of it as a working hypothesis, which has nothing much going for it apart from an excellent predictive record.
Why would a strong state attack a weak, distant state which represents no threat? Because it is low-hanging fruit; if you don’t pluck it someone else will. In the case of Iraq, it could easily fall under Iranian control. So the obvious thing to do is grab it while you can. The saying that “nature abhors a vacuum” is lousy physics, but very sound politics.
This is not to say that invading Iraq was a bright idea, even as realpolitik. A smarter president would surely have found a less risky way to pluck the fruit. As it is, the end result may well be that Iraq ends up just where Americans don’t want it to be – in Iran’s sphere of influence. I don’t think even Bush is stupid enough to allow things to come to that pass, but in order to prevent it he may create an even worse mess than he has already.
This is not a new problem in politics. If you had to deal with Napoleon or Bismarck you wouldn’t suspend judgement until they obligingly proffered an honest explanation.
True. And neither of them had to worry about pesky stuff like answering to the people who elected them: they ruled by fiat. So unlike the homelife of our own dear Queen, so to speak. 😉
The basic idea is: just assume that rulers always exploit the power they already have in order to get more.
That makes perfect sense, true. But given that assumption, it’s fair to call the rulers on it at every possible opportunity. Machiavelli never said that if you see right through the ruler’s machinations, you have a moral obligation not to call him on it.
Oddly enough, I’m finding myself more and more in sympathy with Blogbudsman. We have a basic moral value in common: we both believe it’s fundamentally wrong for the President of the United States to have lied consistently and repeatedly about why and for what purpose he invaded Iraq. The only difference is that Blogbuds doesn’t believe that Bush lied, and I do: but at least Blogbuds agrees that it’s the wrong thing to do!
(Excuse me, Blogbuds, if I am misinterpreting your indignation: I am assuming that you would not be so indignant over the point that Bush lied the US into war with Iraq if, like Rilke and Kevin, you felt it was a perfectly acceptable thing to do.)
Jesurgislac, if I were to learn that our President intentionally deceived us into Iraq for nefarious concerns, I would hold him while you pummeled him. There is no evidence even close to suggesting that occurred.
Blogbuds: if I were to learn that our President intentionally deceived us into Iraq for nefarious concerns
Well, there’s sufficient evidence to show that President Bush intentionally deceived the US into invading Iraq.
Whether it was for “nefarious concerns” or not depends on your judgement of his ultimate purpose: as he’s never stated honestly what that is, we can only guess.
“if, like Rilke and Kevin, you felt it was a perfectly acceptable thing to do.”
I didn’t say anything like that – I said I thought the venture was intended to achieve x, and that if it does it will be a success on those terms – just a tautology. Note incidentally that being able to staff bases implies a lot about stability etc. in Iraq.
blogbudsman, I think a group of people came to Bush and said, we want to invade for the following six or seven different reasons (none of us individually supporting more than half), but we’re going to try sell reasons 3 & 5 because they’re most likely to win politically, and he said, uh, ok (in part because of reason 8 which no one else cared about, namely his struggle with his father). The degree to which awareness of the hollowness of various of the reasons was current in the admin is a matter of dispute. Certainly I don’t think they had nefarious intentions (though the resulting personal gain to some wouldn’t be simple to ignore), but I think it’s inarguable that the admin pushed the issue without allowing free room for open informed debate.
I didn’t say anything like that – I said I thought the venture was intended to achieve x, and that if it does it will be a success on those terms
I apologise – I misunderstood you.
rilkefan, the scenario you suggest could certainly have taken place in some similar manner. Actually, I’ve argued this before, Saddaam dimwittingly placed his regime in the ‘low hanging fruit’ category and made Iraq the perfect storm for the wrath Al Queda wrought. And Jesurgislac, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of the kind. (You and I are doomed to repeat this ‘Is so, Is not’ thing aren’t we – we’re gonna drive everyone nuts)
Actually, I’ve argued this before, Saddaam dimwittingly placed his regime in the ‘low hanging fruit’ category and made Iraq the perfect storm for the wrath Al Queda wrought.
This statement ranks up there with “Allende was killed by a self-inflicted air strike.”
Even if we were to entertain this statement as plausible, it once more does not explain or justify why Bush lied about invading Iraq.
Blogbuds: And Jesurgislac, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of the kind.
I’ve now three times linked you to the post on my journal where I show solid evidence that Bush & Co were lying. If you wish to dispute this evidence, I’m afraid you’ll have to do better than simple denial that it exists.
(You and I are doomed to repeat this ‘Is so, Is not’ thing aren’t we – we’re gonna drive everyone nuts)
Well *shrug* you could just accept that the evidence exists that shows Bush & Co were lying. You can argue with this evidence – you can say that you think instead it shows Bush & Co were grossly incompetent, or that it was just one of those “bureaucratic blunders” that loyal Republicans seem to find Bush & Co so prone to: or you can go the pragmatic route and say it doesn’t really matter that Bush lied: but if you choose to do none of these things and instead, in the face of solid evidence, choose to close your eyes and go “I don’t see it!” … well, that’s not very convincing, is it? You can’t dispute what the evidence shows if you won’t even acknowledge it exists!
wow, i get a flu bug and stop posting for a few days and THIS thread breaks out? lessee, where to take this?
rilkefan’s 1:46 post has the best evidentiary support — various factions in the White House and DOD all saw war with iraq as a good idea, from Rumsfeld’s “cleaning up” his unfinished war to the neocon’s war of civilizations.
Once the admin decided on war, like any admin faced with a difficult task, they SPUN (and spun and spun and spunned some more). Some spinning was outright lies — like Rumsfeld’s “we know where they [the WMD] are.” [either that was a lie, or he was so grossly misled by CIA and military intel about the level of confidence that they had in WMD that . . . well i don’t know . . . everyone should be fired?]
But let’s be honest. when Clinton took the US to war in the Balkans there was a lot of spinning going on.
I favored the war in the Balkans because I thought the admin. was setting reasonable goals — stop ethnic cleansing, partition the country, prevent the spread of virulent nationalism in the Caucuses — at a reasonable price.
I opposed the war in Iraq for essentially the reasons that Bush I did: there was no evidence of sufficient justification [to me, and yes, i know others disagree] and there was no articulable victory condition.
Now, we are riding the tiger of occupation. the occupying forces are largely reactive [from what we read and can infer from the press] and we are no closer to solving the essential problem of convincing the Sunnis of accepting minority status.
so we get Fallouja. now, the resistance in Iraq may be like an anthill, needing a central base. Or the resistance may be more viral. Interrupting one line of communication may slow the progress of the virus, but it will route around the interruption and continue to grow in strength as long as the conditions favor it.
Having spent no time in the military, but having listened to my uncles who served in the french resistance and the free french navy, i believe that resistance is viral. Yes, the french resistance was largely ineffective (to be honest), but they fought anyway, because they were occupied. [
I think i have the virus analogy precisely backward: resistance is like the immune system. Even if the invading virus can knock out one link in the immune system [by stamping on Fallouja], the system as a whole will continue to resist.
ALERT. GODWIN VIOLATION. when was the last time in recent history where a militaristic government insisted that an unpopular minority wear distinctive badges? how well did that work out?
ok, that’s a cheap shot. but if we’re trying to win hearts and minds, i cannot think of a worse way to do it than what we appear to have planned in Fallouja.
Francis
Jesurgislac, I don’t say that it is “perfectly acceptable” for a president to tell lies in order to start a war; certainly not a war like the present one. (I am not an American, but if I were I would certainly have voted against Bush on the principle that any leader who misleads the legislature deserves to be sacked.) All I am saying is that if you want to form a view of what politicians are up to, the realist assumption of power-maximisation will usually serve you well. I wouldn’t use an expression like Blogbudsman’s “nefarious concerns” either, since that term usually connotes personal greed or ambition. Maybe wanting to expand American power to the greatest extent possible isn’t a moral impulse, but it isn’t nefarious in my book.
As to what happened, I think Rilkefan summarises it pretty well: “The degree to which awareness of the hollowness of various of the reasons was current in the admin is a matter of dispute. (etc.)” I think that there was some conscious deception (particularly by Cheney who made some ludicrous claims) and also a lot of self-deception.
Jesurgislac, to back your argument citing your own post where you repeat your argument is not proof of anything. I’ve read these before, and have seen you repeat many often. Most are not accurate and the one that are based on any fact are twisted toward the point you are trying to defend.
And Jadegold, I was kind of proud of my little conclusion regarding the fruits of Saddaams labor.
Had he complied with the UN, he could still be sharing his billions with the French, probably nearing the end of sanctions, and ready to begin competing with Iran for world dominance.
Blogbuds: Most are not accurate and the one that are based on any fact are twisted toward the point you are trying to defend.
Fine. Point out to me where the inaccuracy is: back it with cites showing me where the inaccuracy is. If you think the logic is twisted, show me where it’s twisted. But just making wild unsubstantiated claims against a solid, fact-based point, is unconvincing. If you can’t do any better, why bother?
Had he complied with the UN
…as in fact Bush’s own inspection teams proved he had. But it didn’t make any difference, because Bush & Co were resolved to invade anyway: they just lied about it.
For those of you keeping score at home, Blogbudsman still owes Jes and Jadegold an apology, and I think he owes everyone reading this thread an apology for turning it into a ‘Bush lies-no he doesn’t’ thread. Or perhaps this is some of that ‘genuine out of the box thinking’ on Fallujah you mentioned earlier?
I would also add that I didn’t take being called ‘Lib’ an insult, so no apologies to me about that are necessary.
blogbudsman:
It seems to be a common theme of war supporters that the sanctions against saddam were crumbling. But is that really true? Was there an opportunity after 9/11 to reinvigorate a policy of regime change in Iraq that did not require invasion?
Put another way — assuming that Al Gore had been president, what would have the US’s policy to Iraq have been? complete abdication? Use the moral clout created by 9/11 for coercive inspections plus a possible buy-out a la Marcos?
to some extent, arguing these counterfactuals is useless — Bush won, and we fought gulfwar2. More to the point, you should know that I find it tremendously insulting, because invariably the conclusion is that a Gore admin would have been spineless and craven. You are certainly entitled to hold that belief, but you should be aware that many people deeply disagree. and since we will never know, my view is that these arguments are pointlessly divisive.
there is enough to argue about in the world at hand — like how to handle iran, iraq and north korea in light of our current occupation of iraq. for example, i remain terrified that bush will launch an invasion of iran in late January, and the US could face the possibility of real defeat. could, for example, the iranian regime buy a North Korea nuke, sail it into the port of Long Beach and set it off? Frankly, if i were the iranian regime, i’d be making those arrangements right now. What should US policy be if iran publicly/privately notifies the US that it has done so? what if they’re bluffing?
these forward-looking hypotheticals are the subject of legitimate debate. arguing about how things might be different had Gore won is not. what can you say except: yes, he’d have handled it well / no he wouldn’t.
as monty python pointed out, an argument is more than a contradiction.
no, it isn’t.
yes, it is.
Francis
I’m not quite sure why an apology is necessary, now that I’ve had some time to think about it; blogbud’s comments seemed to demean (or at least attempt to) hilzoy, Jesurgislac and JadeGold all in one go. And in defense of all of them, Jesurgislac and JadeGold don’t need hilzoy’s sheltering hand in the least bit, and hilzoy doesn’t exactly shepherd them along. So maybe not a personal apology so much as a general apology for being unpleasant. Not to mention inaccurate.
No, he didn’t.
8p
You’re not going to win anyone over by saying stupid things. And I can say that as the token Republican on this blog, that was an objective and restrained assessment.
“I can say that as the token Republican on this blog”
Is SH a libertarian? Certainly I’d welcome more conservative voices – I find myself arguing from (my impression of) a moderate perspective mostly these days, which is somewhat uncomfortable.
Speaking solely for myself, I don’t require an apology. This forum could use a bit more frank discussion. I’m generally opposed to ‘net nannyism in all but extreme cases on GPs.
Well, as long as it’s going off the rails, I just want to recognize that Slarti name-dropped, of all the quotables that could ever have come to mind, Ned’s Freakin’ Atomic Dustbin, the best 80’s also-ran band with two simultaneous bass players and who once covered the Bay City Rollers that there ever was!
I’m generally opposed to ‘net nannyism in all but extreme cases on GPs.
Well, since we are here, I think that people need to be called on things earlier and more often rather than waiting for things to become egregious. Also, I really have a problem with the ‘stalking’ component of this. wwc gave a throw away line, but the whole idea that we should gang up on you and Jes even though you hadn’t expressed any opinion in this thread (note that Jes’s reply to wwc was simply a snark for snark, not intended to inform us how domain naming procedures were to contribute to the reconstruction of Falluja) is really repulsive. Remember, you are not included in the group who is “anyone genuinely interested in a successful continuation of the city fka Fallujah”. That’s bs and bbm should be called on it.
Also, attacking people in threads that they haven’t expressed an opinion in is not only a surefire way to divert the conversation, it makes it so that when the person attacked comes to defend themselves, they get tagged with being thin-skinned. It’s a pity we don’t have a way of replicating a hockey sin bin.
Dianne,
There are many here that you cannot argue with because only “they” know the truth. Almost all of their posts are an attack against America or Republicans.
Sometimes the only proper response is to emphasizing the outrageousness of their comments by one more outrageous.
I would argue that my response to your first post is all the thought your post really deserved.
Quoth WWC: I would argue that my response to your first post is all the thought your post really deserved.
Then your argument is without factual merit.
Hi guys, whassup? I’ve been finishing up my outdoor Christmas lights. All blue. It’s looking pretty cool. Maybe I’ll add a few more this weekend.
Lets see, where are we.
Francis, how are you this evening. In several readings I was getting the idea that the sanctions were on shaky ground, all the concern about the suffering being caused. Saddaam was greasing the palms of the French and Russians to re-enter the arena where he could recall weaponry from Syria and keep his guard up against Iran. As far as how the world would be with Al Gore, I really don’t have much of an opinion, but his actions during the 2004 campaign seemed fairly over the top.
I’d be willing to offer Jesurgislac and Jadegold an apology, but more form over substance. Afterall, I was just chiming in after hilzoy seemed to think wwc had included her in his rant.
And Slartibartfast, as a self proclaimed token Republican do you agree with Jesurgislac? She bitch slaps your President all over the blogoshere and you quote Monty Python. Even Sebastian seems to have the vigor drained out of him. Moe knows!
Rarely. Extremely rarely. When I do, it’s a safe bet that at least one of us is sorely tempted to change his or her position.
Wasn’t me that quoted Monty Python, but Monty Python is always the same level of appropriateness. As for the bitch-slapping part, Jesurgislac has her opinions. She’s entitled to them. Her having those opinions don’t count for anything at all, as far as I’m concerned. If I were offended every time someone voiced an opinion I found to be disagreeable, I’d be one pissed-off fellow.
I can’t speak for Sebastian, but I’ve not noticed any lack of verve on his part. Speaking for myself, I decline to get into pissing contests. Pissing contests over matters that are purely opinion are even less attractive.
And you might want to consider that in some cases, you’re being baited. Masterfully, even. Why give them the pleasure?
Phil, just to keep on the up and up, I’m not what you’d call a fan. The Dustbin is one of many, many groups that I own no more than one disc of. Still, I haven’t sold it at a garage sale yet, so calibrate accordingly.
But if you’re into music trivia, consider how Klark Kent is pronounced. I’ve got one of the artist, but five or so from the group he played with under his real name. I’m sure this is one of those things Google is just going to wreck, though.
Sebastian did have the flu recently, if I recall correctly, but I don’t think Jes gave it to him. (Though since I’ve never met either or them, I can’t be entirely sure.)
I hate the term ‘bitch-slap’, myself. This comes either from having worked for years in battered women’s shelters or from an antecedent dislike for physical abuse; take your pick.
Whew, where to begin.
On the issue of lies told by Bush about the Iraq war, BBM, Jesurgislac has what I would consider half a point in his favour. What he says does not prove that Bush lied, it could prove that he planned incompetently and was simply unable to pull off any part of his plan in Iraq except for the simplest and easiest component — march in with the biggest military in the world and topple the existing government. Essentially, it is only with personal judgement that we can judge the ratio of lies to incompetence. I put it at around fifty-fifty, which seems about right for most politicians.
But, can I say that Bush has lied at all? Yes, absolutely. He was called on lies in the runup to Iraq and in the aftermath of 9/11. There are some things he may have merely been mistaken or badly advised about, but there are some that he knew.
We do, I feel, need to make a distinction between lies told by Bush and by The Bush Administration. Cheney and Rumsfeld have also been caught in demonstrable lies, or “overreaching” or “misstatements,” if you wish to be charitible. We need to be clear that these should not be directly ascribed to him, but also that the buck stops, not at Rumsfeld or Cheney, but at Bush. If his SecDef or VP lies — or “misstates” or “exaggerates” or “overreaches” — that is a reflection on the man who picked them for the task.
Now, if this comment is an “attack against America,” then I really am losing my mind.
Slarti: Snark noted, logged, and thereafter ignored.
Comparisons to Vietnam are apt, because our tactics are sliding down the same slimy slope. We’re firmly seated in the “Destroy the City in order to save it” saddle, and our metrics-for-success have similarly devolved to “How many insurgents did we kill today?”
You cannot win a war when you don’t know exactly why you’re fighting it, and have mutually-contradictory goals in mind. This has been said over and over; it apparently can’t be repeated enough.
Take Iraq War Justification No. 5, the “flypaper” theory: “The war in Iraq was waged because it is better to fight terrorists over there than over here.”
Leaving aside for the moment the utter moral bankruptcy of using an entire nation as bear bait, there’s a wee difficulty in using an entire nation as bear bait while insisting that we’re also there to liberate/democratize the place. It’s a conflict of goals. You can’t do both at once. The strategies don’t mesh.
I understand why some people want very much to explain how the war was and is a good thing. It can’t be easy, if you support the war and the war’s architects, to come up with a silver lining in all that deception, callousness, and incompetence. None of the reasons for going to war have panned out (the latest trial balloon is that we had to go to war because of the Oil-for-Food scandal). None of those nifty little project milestones really amounted to much (the next one, January Elections, is now looking to be another accomplishment of dubious value). Our soldiers keep getting killed and maimed; and in order to keep Bush’s promise of “an all-volunteer army; no draft,” the Bush Admin is now sending amputees back to the battlefield.
I have yet to hear a war supporter present a lucid rationale for the war, or a cogent analysis of the war, or a reasonable projection of what “winning” the war will look like. Or, to stay on-topic, how the tactics being used in Fallujah further any of our putative goals. Instead, the discussion has been taken over by a Who Insulted Who? argument.
Blogbudsman: for more lies (using a pretty clear-cut definition of ‘lie’), see here, and here. There were also the various occasions, which I will try to find if you want, when he said that Saddam Hussein never let the inspectors back into Iraq, and so forth.
I am not counting things he said about what he’d do in the future which turned out to be wildly false — e.g., that he believed in balanced budgets, that he would pursue a humble foreign policy, etc. — since for all I know he might have believed them at the time, and thus they might not technically be lies. However, one that I think was genuinely dishonest was his claim, in (I think) the Jan. 2002 State of the Union speech, that he would not pass our nation’s problems on to our children. This is exactly what running up a deficit does. And it was by then clear that he would be running a serious deficit. I remember looking at the TV set in disbelief.
There were also the various occasions, which I will try to find if you want, when he said that Saddam Hussein never let the inspectors back into Iraq, and so forth.
If memory serves, this was led off by Sen Pat Roberts of the Intelligence Committee. Most people initially assumed that this was just a verbal gaffe, but it was reiterated at least twice more, once by Bush, and then dropped, never to be heard from again. I have no idea what game they were playing; I can only assume that it was a) successful (no-one in the MSM commented on it) and b) not successful enough (hence being dropped).
McDuff: Jesurgislac has what I would consider half a point … does not prove that Bush lied, it could prove that he planned incompetently and was simply unable to pull off any part of his plan in Iraq except for the simplest and easiest component
I went on thinking for a long time that Bush & Co were simply grossly incompetent. Then the Al-QaaQaa news broke, and I realized that the scale of this incompetency had really gone beyond what I could consider humanly possible.
If we suppose that George W. Bush really believed what he said about invading Iraq because of the stockpiled WMD, it follows that he said and did nothing to anyone about securing and identifying those stockpiles.
Let’s just consider that for a minute. He’s the Commander in Chief: he and other senior members of his administration have publicly committed themselves to these stockpiles being there: and if we’re to suppose that Bush believed what he was saying was true, then it was vitally important that those stockpiles should be secured when they were found:
– One, most important: because that was the primary purpose of the invasion (according to Bush’s statements pre-invasion), and if it was not done the invasion would be deemed a failure, no matter how fast the troops got to Baghdad:
– Two, because unless it was done the stockpiled WMD would constitute an immediate threat to the US troops in the country, and a long-term threat to the US and to other countries:
– Three, because finding the stockpiled WMD would prove to the US and to the world that the US was right to invade.
Now, it’s possible that those who want to believe that Bush was telling the truth prefer to think that Bush and his senior administration are such complete incompetents that neither one, two, or three ever occurred to them. They believed the stockpiles were there, all right, but they didn’t think they actually had to do anything about them.
But you know what? I can’t imagine that. (Well, okay, if I try very hard I can just believe that Bush was systematically lied to by his senior administration, but that comes too close to conspiracy theories for easy belief.)
The only conclusion I can draw, on the definite evidence we have that neither Bush nor Rumsfeld ever made any plans to deal with stockpiled WMD in Iraq, is that they were lying. The only other possible conclusion is that they were inhumanly incompetent.
Slarti: So maybe not a personal apology so much as a general apology for being unpleasant. Not to mention inaccurate.
I agree with you. But hope you don’t feel too sorely tempted to change your position on that account. 😉
One, most important: because that was the primary purpose of the invasion (according to Bush’s statements pre-invasion)…
Another fun thing to consider is the mutual contradiction between the WMD rationale and the humanitarian one. Not that they’re inherently contradictory — indeed, most of the warbloggers put together coherent arguments in this fashion — but because the Bush Administration clearly considered them opposed.
Consider, for example, the ultimatums towards Saddam Hussein in the run-up to war. No-one ever demanded that Saddam Hussein stop torturing his civilians, or start holding free and fair elections, lest invasion befall; the only demands were in reference to properly documenting the destruction of the WMD programs. So suppose that in February 2003 Saddam produced the documentation for said destruction, what then? Invade anyway without an excuse? Shake our finger sternly and go back to the status quo? Given that the Bush Administration had made that our sole legal casus belli I don’t see how we could have legitimately invaded (even if you grant the legitimacy of the actual invasion).
Or, to be more blunt about it, if liberalization and democratization were so important to the Bush Administration, why didn’t they include such measures in any of their demands?
There’s a similar problem in the contradictions between “flypaper” and freedom that CaseyL has admirably covered already. And an entirely different problem, as noted by Jes, that the Bush Administration betrayed utter unseriousness of intent re WMD anyway, leaving the supposed rationale for war quite, well, ephemeral.
Yeah, masterfully baited. I just remembered where I picked up ‘bitch slapped’. The CJ character on West Wing. I bet Karen Hughes could sling that one around a bit. I just don’t see how you can’t take some of these arguments personally. Using the cited examples of ‘lies’, just about every human being will be condemned to hell. Oh well, onward and upward. Whenever you want to spice up a thread, bait me, I’ll bite.
Using the cited examples of ‘lies’, just about every human being will be condemned to hell.
To lie: To say something that you know is not true.
Do you use a different definition? Bush has told many lies, and specifically, he lied to the US people, to US Congress, and to the world, about his primary reason for making war on Iraq. This is not a trivial lie, or a lie about something that matters only to Bush. Stick to your principles, Blogbuds: you were saying only yesterday that you considered this to be an important matter.
I don’t know about hell: I’m an atheist.
Using the cited examples of ‘lies’, just about every human being will be condemned to hell.
I can quite confidently say that neither I nor any of my friends has ever lied about their reasons for going to war, so I guess we’re safe then.