Thanks for linking. It’s good to hear someone saying to people like Hitchens what Ghassan Atiyyah said.
I wonder how they monitored voting for women who wear this type of garb (niqab) because it is easy to counterfeit identity using it. In Egypt they don’t allow women to enter final exam rooms in universities while wearing the face veil. I assume the Iraqi system had a facility where the woman could show a photo ID to a woman election volunteer in order to verify; if not then I think this photo reprsents extreme sloppiness in maintaining the integrity of the election. I used to work in Saudi Arabia where the identity theft made possible by the Niqab was a major issue.
Anna, given that there were no neutral electoral observers (Iraq was too unsafe for them) I doubt if anyone will ever know how valid this election was, nor how many women voted wearing the veil (nor how many instances of identity theft occurred…)
Just trying to find out what party Ghassan al-Atiyyah represents was difficult enough (it’s either the National Independent Party – or possibly National Independence Party – or the Independent Iraqi Democrats). Given that he had to leave Iraq in late January because he was at risk of being killed for being a candidate, I am unsurprised that he was angry and frustrated enough to lose his temper at Chris Hitchens. (How often has Hitchens visited Iraq over the past two years?)
Interesting. From the link (sorry, a bit of a threadjack) “When the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia,” Hitchens said, “they murdered the czar, his wife, and his children…so there would be no going back. Are you sure that’s what you want?”
This story was in the news a while ago, with the DNA match for the bones of the Romanovs (with Prince Phillip). Also (for the mathematicians in the room) there was a rather novel statistical proof that the 7 sets of remains were the Romanovs based on comparing the statistical possibility of the grouping of remains with the possibility of it occurring randomly, but googling doesn’t turn it up.
I also understood that the Czar and his family were executed because of the approach of the Czech Legion (whose existence led to the intervention of the Western powers in Siberia which Gary Farber mentioned in an earlier thread) to Ekaterinburg , so assigning the notion that they were killed because there was no turning back is probably a mis-statement.
A link to a summary of the diaries about the execution. Rather gory.
lj, …the miserable sacrifice revealed that the women had expensive ornaments inside their clothing.
Yep. I’ve read that the reason why it took a while to kill the women was because the bullets would just bounce off the gems sewn in their dresses.
jes, Anna, given that there were no neutral electoral observers (Iraq was too unsafe for them)
Hmm. But couldn’t they get the human shield groups to come in and “shield”?
Hmm. But couldn’t they get the human shield groups to come in and “shield”?
Why didn’t you volunteer, Stan?
Because he wasn’t a human shield.
Because he wasn’t a human shield.
So perhaps he shouldn’t make snarky remarks about people who were prepared to risk their lives?
Just wondering.
Jes,
Eh? Perhaps these people weren’t “prepared” since they consistently choose not to shield the people who are actually at high risk for being killed. None in Chechnya, non in Rwanda, none in Sudan, none in Algeria, and none in Iraq on the election day.
None were present in Fallujah, either. Any in Iran shielding the students? Hm.. Don’ think so.
Stan: Perhaps these people weren’t “prepared” since they consistently choose not to shield the people who are actually at high risk for being killed.
Neither do you, that I’ve seen. Or do you? I wouldn’t want to malign you if it’s not so, but as far as I know, you’ve stayed safely at home in the US.
“So perhaps he shouldn’t make snarky remarks about people who were prepared to risk their lives?”
First, I don’t think most people who were human shields thought they were actually risking their lives–certainly not as much as say Marines I know. Second, I can’t speak for Stan, but I’m perfectly willing to make snarky remarks about people who want to risk their lives with the theoretical purpose of protecting civilians, but the actual effect (if any) tending toward the protection of tyrants.
Jes,
That’s because I am not hypocrite.
Sebastian,
Ditto!
Stan: That’s because I am not hypocrite.
*shrug* You can call it that if you like, I suppose…
Jes,
By your logic you can’t criticize the POTUS, because you never ran for the office.
Stan, feel free to blather away on your own.
Anyone actually want to discuss the issue of American imperialism overriding Iraqi democracy, as raised in Totten’s blog?
Eh? How would the Iraqi democracy come about without the “American imperialism”?
Off topic: there is a great honking big article about extraordinary rendition in the New Yorker this week.
Can I request an open thread on it? Don’t want to hijack a thread on the Iraqi elections with my hobbyhorse, but it’s even further off topic everywhere else.
Stan: How would the Iraqi democracy come about without the “American imperialism”?
How can Iraqi democracy come about if American imperialism intends to override any electoral results it doesn’t like?
I hate to pick sides here, but it was my understanding that most of the so-called “human shields” hot-footed it right out of Iraq as soon as they discovered that the Iraqi government actually wanted them to protect potential high-value military targets rather than puppy farms, kindergartens and cotton candy factories. Was this not the case?
I don’t know – I was honestly not following the human shields in Iraq enough. You may well be right: if so, it was certainly as principled to leave as it was to go, since it’s no business of a human shield to protect military industries.
Jes, since it’s no business of a human shield to protect military industries.
Ah! So they thought that US would target puppy farms, kindergartens and cotton candy factories???
Also, can you expand on the human shield “business” a bit? Like outside of Iraq/West Bank context?
Told you already, Stan, you’re welcome to blather on about this on your own all you like.
American imperialism overriding Iraqi democracy, eh?
“Told you already, Stan, you’re welcome to blather on about this on your own all you like.”
If you want to ignore Stan, please do so. No need to be rude about it.
rilke,
Thanks, but I understand Jes. Must be real hard to be civil to an American imperialist pig. 🙂
Rilke: No need to be rude about it.
You have a point, damn you. 🙂
Stan: Must be real hard to be civil to an American imperialist pig. 🙂
Are you? No, I was just annoyed that you wanted to discuss human shields instead of American imperialism. But if you are an American imperialist pig, that’s understandable.
Jes,
oink! oink!
Jeanne at Body and Soul has an excellent follow-up post on the Iraqi elections.
Jes,
Interesting post, but the One would almost think that the editors of the New York Times are looking at pictures Iraq, picking up all the details, and misreading the mood entirely. is rather naive. They are not “misreading the mood”, but are trying to create it at NYT.
As for Dahr Jamail’s, piece “Coalition troops and Iraqi security forces may be responsible for up to 60% of conflict-related civilian deaths in Iraq — far more than are killed by insurgents, confidential records obtained by the BBC’s Panorama programme reveal.”
This was written on February the 2nd – 4 days *after* the: The BBC apologised on Saturday for erroneously reporting that U.S.-led and Iraqi forces may be responsible for the deaths of 60 percent of Iraqi civilians killed in conflict over the last six months.
Honest mistake on Dahr’s part, or ..?
As for Hersh’s the number of tonnage dropped has grown exponentially. – no actual numbers are mentioned, so I am not sure how credible that statement is.
Jeez you guys this thread isn’t even about human shields. There is some pretty interesting and important stuff on the blog linked up thread. it’s worth reading. For one thing people shouldn’t be throwing the word “Taliban” around as if it meant any kind of Islamic religiously-oriented government. The Taliban was a specific entity. A Shia or Sunni government in Iraq is not the Taliban. Also think of the unbelieveable arrogance of the “We didn’t invade so you could elect that kind of government ” attitude. If we truely invaded to create democracy, then we have to live with the vote results. Otherwise it isn’t democracy. Maybe we shouldn’t havve invaded!
The Iraqis chose what they chose. If we don’t like it, so what. We either have to accept their decision or admit that we don’t want a real democracy, only a client state.
Which is it?
stan: They are not “misreading the mood”, but are trying to create it at NYT.
I hope they succeeded in creating a good mood at the New York Times. Obviously they would have made no difference one way or the other to the Iraqis, but I think creating a positive mood in your workplace is generally a good thing.
lily: Also think of the unbelieveable arrogance of the “We didn’t invade so you could elect that kind of government ” attitude. If we truely invaded to create democracy, then we have to live with the vote results. Otherwise it isn’t democracy.
Quite. or admit that we don’t want a real democracy, only a client state.
I think it’s evident that Bush & Co wanted a client state, not a democracy. As Jeanne pointed out, he didn’t want even the present travesty of elections.
“I think it’s evident that Bush & Co wanted a client state, not a democracy.”
I don’t think that is evident at all. We don’t need a client state, want a non-crazy non-dictaorship. Hell, we could probably settle for a Jordan.
That picture looks staged…like everything else with this Iraqi Fiasco.
Sebastian: I don’t think that is evident at all.
How else do you explain Bush’s extreme reluctance to allow elections?
How else will you explain US refusal to abide by the results of the elections? (Assuming, of course, that Hitchen’s guess was right, and “we” didn’t invade Iraq to let them decide on their own government.)
Jordan would not let us plant our milirtary in their nation.
Iraq was the only one we had an excuse to invade and freedomize.
Nationalizing Anglo-American companies (see Chile and the rest of Latin America’s freedomization programs), especially oil companies (see Iran, Iraq) will force the anger of the Anglo-American Freedom Fascists & Lynch Mob Inc.
I’m not sure I understand that last sentence.
Anglo-American Freedom Fascists & Lynch Mob Inc.
is a metaphor for the political policy of the United States and United Kingdom toward the Developing World.
A nations’ depravity and character is relative to the way they treat Anglo-American companies.
Between the end of the Spanish-American War and the dawn of the Great Depression, the United States sent troops to Latin American countries thirty-two times. It used the Roosevelt Corollary, or addition, to the Monroe Doctrine to justify intervention. In the corollary, Teddy Roosevelt proclaimed that the United States, because it was a “civilized nation,” had the right to stop “chronic wrongdoing” throughout the Western Hemisphere.
“Any country whose people conduct themselves well can count upon our hearty friendship,” he said. “Chronic wrongdoing, however, . . . may force the United States to exercise an international police power.” Teddy didn’t hesitate to use this “police power” to strengthen his country, but he was always careful not to upset the balance of world power.
William Howard Taft, former governor of the Philippines, followed Roosevelt into the White House. Taft believed in economic expansion, and he introduced a policy called “dollar diplomacy.” This policy used diplomacy to advance and protect American businesses in other countries. Taft employed Roosevelt’s corollary in Nicaragua and other Latin American countries to protect American investments.
More: U.S. Imperialism in Latin America
What do you believe Cheney’s holdings in Halliburton are?
Yes I think a Jordan with Allawi as king would have been acceptable to many supporters of this war. But such a government would have been a client state, only minimally democratic, which undercuts the whole “making a democracy, we aren’t here to stay ” rationalization for the war.
The Iraqis didn’t vote for a crazy dictator. They voted for a Shia coalition that will probably institute Sharia law in non-Kurd parts of Iraq. They might strike a deal with the Kurds and give them some kind of independence. However, whatever they decide is their right, their decision. Too bad so sad if Bush’s megalomainia isn’t satisfied. If, of all the lies, deceptions, rationalizations and excuses for this war the “making a democracy” line is going to be believed, then we have to abide by their decision.
one source has him at Cheney, who served as CEO from 1995 to 2000, continues to receive as much as $1 million a year in deferred compensation as Halliburton executives enjoy a seat at the table during Administration discussions over how to handle post-war oil production in Iraq.
What do your sources say?
Cheney, refusing to give the Clinton administration any credit for his own prosperity, or the nation’s, replied that his new wealth “had nothing to do with the government.”
The assertion was disingenuous, as in fact Halliburton’s growth and Dick Cheney’s own $37 million stock and option windfall were directly related to profits made with the help of foreign aid packages and military contracts. Cheney’s own connections from a long career in government clearly played a role in the company’s success. Moreover, the chuckling after this understated paean to private sector superiority helped to obscure the fact that Dick Cheney’s Halliburton has succeeded by partnering or engaging with governments around the world-including some of the most repressive regimes in the world-and its complicity with egregious human rights violations.
From: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Oil_watch/Cheney_Halliburton.html
Firm’s Iraq Deals Greater Than Cheney Has Said
Washington Post | June 23, 2001 During last year’s presidential campaign, Richard B. Cheney acknowledged that the oil-field supply corporation he headed, Halliburton Co., did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries. But he insisted that he had imposed a “firm policy” against trading with Iraq.
“Iraq’s different,” he said.
According to oil industry executives and confidential United Nations records, however, Halliburton held stakes in two firms that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer of the Dallas-based company.
From: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2001/0627chen.htm
I think he and many others are making good money.
God knows, what this is about:
Cheney’s Path: From Gulf War to Mideast Oil
In Business, He Benefited From His Pentagon Days
Mr. Cheney called in June for the lifting of U.S. sanctions on Iran. He called relations between Iran and the United States a ”tragedy,” adding that one of the best ways to improve ties would be ”to allow American firms to do the same thing that most other firms around the world are able to do now, and that is to be active in Iran.”
He added, ”We’re kept out of there primarily by our own government, which has made a decision that U.S. firms should not be allowed to invest significantly in Iran, and I think that’s a mistake.”
Under Mr. Cheney, Halliburton has become a leading member of USA Engage, a lobbying group that seeks to lift sanctions. Halliburton is also a member of the board of the National Foreign Trade Council, a lobbying group that recently won a victory in the Supreme Court, which struck down a Massachusetts state law imposing state sanctions on companies doing business in Burma.
Mr. Cheney’s company has already done business in countries still facing U.S. sanctions, including Libya and Iraq, the enemy Mr. Cheney helped vanquish in the Gulf War.
Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump Co., joint ventures that Halliburton has sold within the past year, have done work in Iraq on contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq’s oil industry, under the United Nation’s Oil for Food program.
More: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3981d4da7d19.htm
was that to long?
Cindy Sheehan, mother of Spc Casey Austin Sheehan KIA 04/04/04:
Casey was killed after George Bush proclaimed “Mission Accomplished” on May 1, 2003 — he was also killed after Saddam was captured in December of that same year. Casey was killed before the transfer of power in June of 2004 and before these elections. Four marines were tragically killed after the election. By my count, about five dozen Iraqis and coalition troops were killed on Election Day — is that the definition of “Catastrophic Success?” But is that a good day in Iraq? Hundreds of our young people and thousands of Iraqis have been needlessly and senselessly murdered since George Bush triumphantly announced an end to “major combat” almost 2 years ago now. All of the above events have been heralded by this administration as “turning points” in the “war on terror” — or as wonderful events in the “march of democracy.” Really? I don’t think, judging by very recent history, that the elections will stop the bloodshed and destruction.
I would have asked Mr. King if he would want to sacrifice one of his children for sham elections in Iraq. Would he or George Bush send their children to be killed, or maimed for life, for a series of lies, mistakes and miscalculations? Now that every lie has been exposed to the light for the invasion and occupation of Iraq — why are our sons and daughters still there? NOT ONE MORE DROP OF BLOOD SHOULD BE SPILLED FOR THIS PACK OF LIES. read the rest
Though to the Iraqis whose country is being destroyed around them, and who have to listen to Americans safe at home telling them that if they vote the wrong way their decision will be overruled, Ms Sheehan’s loss is just an every day event… but she’s right to ask: How long are people willing to put up with Bush never being asked to account for his lies?
Houzan Mahmoud, an Iraqi living in Britain, is the United Kingdom head of the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq:
I am an Iraqi woman, and I am boycotting the elections. Women who do vote will be voting for an enslaved future. Surely, say those who support these elections, after decades of tyranny, here at last is a form of democracy, imperfect, but democracy nevertheless? In reality, these elections are, for Iraq’s women, little more than a cruel joke. read the rest
We don’t need a client state, want a non-crazy non-dictaorship. Hell, we could probably settle for a Jordan.
Man, if only Bush et al. had used that as their slogan to sell the invasion. “Truth, Justice and the Jordanian Way!” Would’ve been a damn sight more honest than what they did… which is, of course, probably why they didn’t.
“In reality, these elections are, for Iraq’s women, little more than a cruel joke.”
Quick question. Is that more or less likely with an agressive US pullout from Iraq?
Sebastian: Is that more or less likely with an agressive US pullout from Iraq?
Given that the US military is currently fighting an unwinnable war in Iraq, I cannot see what difference it will make one way or another.
Since that isn’t a given, I’m not sure what your answer is.
Sebastian: Since that isn’t a given
What? US defeat in Iraq? It’s a given. A foreign army of occupation/conquest cannot win against a local opposition with popular support: and the longer the US occupation remains in Iraq, the more popular support they win for the insurgency.
If you doubt this, Sebastian, would you like to explain how the US occupation can win in Iraq, when 85% of the population just want them to go away?
“A foreign army of occupation/conquest cannot win against a local opposition with popular support:”
Hmm, I would dispute this on all sorts of grounds. The US is not a position of conquest. Whether or not it is an army of occupation for the indefinite future depends on its long term relationship with the Iraqi government unless you would suggest that we are currently ‘occupying’ South Korea for instance. The idea that a foreign army CANNOT win against local opposition with popular support is well not even remotely true unless you are willing to discount the entire history of conquering armies or unless you have incredibly broad definitions of ‘local opposition’, ‘popular support’, and ‘win’.
In short your statement is so amorphous as to not even provide grounds to substantively argue with.
Jes,
If the support is so popular then why is the #1 terrorist in Iraq a… Jordanian? The suicide bomber who blew himself up in the mess hall… a Saudi?
Recently a boy with down syndrome was used as a suicide bomber. Sounds pretty desperate and not that “popular”.
Sebastian: The US is not a position of conquest.
*shrug* That’s not what it looks like (quite evidently) to the Iraqis. Whether or not it is an army of occupation for the indefinite future depends on its long term relationship with the Iraqi government
Actually, it rather depends on what it looks like to the Iraqis, not just to their government. Especially as they’ve yet to elect a government, and have no idea if their conquerors and occupiers will permit them to elect a government which will be allowed to tell the US occupation to get out. Or if the US occupation will go, if told to do so, and quit bombing Iraq, too. The idea that a foreign army CANNOT win against local opposition with popular support is well not even remotely true
Show me an instance in, say, the past fifty years in which it has been true, then.
==
Stan, if your idea of “popular support” equates to “suicide bomber”… I cannot comment on this: I would break the posting rules were I to try. Would you argue that Bush’s administration has “popular support”? If so, how many Americans are willing to be suicide bombers for Bush, and if not, how can you argue that Bush’s administration has “popular support” – since your idea of “popular support” is “willing to be a suicide bomber”?
Interesting cut off period, afraid to give me 65 years so I can Japan and Germany? Korea. Tibet.
Sebastian: Interesting cut off period, afraid to give me 65 years so I can Japan and Germany? Korea. Tibet.
Tibet I’ll give you: is it your impression that the US plans to conquer Iraq by importing hordes of American peasants to take over? In any case, fair point: it is possible for an army of conquest/occupation to win against local resistence if the conquerors manage to get the sovereign ruler and incarnate deity to sign a peace agreement to give them sufficient time to utterly destroy the country’s culture, exile many of the country’s native inhabitants, and forcibly expatriate large numbers of the conquering country’s inhabitants to live in the conquered country.
Not a particularly good comparison to Iraq, especially as there’s no possibility of territorially-integrating Iraq with the US in order to make this expansion possible, but, yes, if the US wants to imitate China’s conquest of Tibet with its own conquest of Iraq, and if that is your definition of the US “winning”, it’s still possible for the US to “win” in Iraq. Is it?
Neither in Japan nor in Germany was there local resistence against the invading/conquering armies once the governments had surrendered. So those examples fall.
As for Korea, you’ll have to be rather more specific: once you move outside the convenient fifty-year boundary line, that country has rather a lot of history to deal with.
Jes, since your idea of “popular support” is “willing to be a suicide bomber”?
What are you quoting from?
Where are you quoting from, rather.
Neither in Japan nor in Germany was there local resistence against the invading/conquering armies once the governments had surrendered. So those examples fall.
Actually, Jes, there was a resistance movement in Germany called werwolf. It’s disputed how much violence was the result of that program and how much was the kind of violence created by the social dislocation that came with the Occupation. However, both West Germany and Korea had ‘enemies’ on their border, which changed the dynamic a bit, I think.
As for the 50 year cut off, I don’t think we are willing to take the steps that were taken in previous eras to enforce our will, and I am relatively sure that Iraqis would not stand for it if we did, based on Hitchens’ encounter.
Actually, Jes, there was a resistance movement in Germany called werwolf. It’s disputed how much violence was the result of that program and how much was the kind of violence created by the social dislocation that came with the Occupation.
I always believed (from history lessons, but also from stories by people who lived through it, including my mother in law who worked for the intelligence service and later in occupied germany because she was fluent in german) that the werwolves were hardly noticable.
Stan asked: What are you quoting from?
You, at February 8, 2005 06:59 PM, where you equate popular support with “willing to be a suicide bomber”.
liberalj: Actually, Jes, there was a resistance movement in Germany called werwolf.
What DutchMarbel said: from all contemporary accounts, the werewolves were never a serious problem.
Jes, where you equate popular support with “willing to be a suicide bomber”.
I do not, I was merely showing some examples of the “Iraqi resistance” not being actually “Iraqi”. Can you name just one Iraqi leader of the Iraqi resistance?
Stan: I do not
It may not have been what you meant, but it’s certainly what you said. Can you name just one Iraqi leader of the Iraqi resistance? Muqtada al-Sadr.
Shaykh Abd-al-Wahhab Isma’il al-Janabi of the Association of Muslim Scholars would seem to count as an Iraqi leader of the Iraqi resistance. And the US Military keeps insisting that the old guy with the bad kidneys – Izzat Ibrahim? – is a ringleader. That’s why we kept “detaining” his wife and daughter.
A more interesting question, touching on the issue of Pentagon news management, is why you can’t name an Iraqi leader of the Iraqi resistance. Mind you, this may also touch on the issue of the worth of what we’re pleased to call our intelligence on the enemy too.
Cane the Wogs!
Cane the Wogs! – Michael Totten and Christopher Hitchens give a few friendly Iraqis what-for. Note that in Totten’s gloss…
Thanks for linking. It’s good to hear someone saying to people like Hitchens what Ghassan Atiyyah said.
I wonder how they monitored voting for women who wear this type of garb (niqab) because it is easy to counterfeit identity using it. In Egypt they don’t allow women to enter final exam rooms in universities while wearing the face veil. I assume the Iraqi system had a facility where the woman could show a photo ID to a woman election volunteer in order to verify; if not then I think this photo reprsents extreme sloppiness in maintaining the integrity of the election. I used to work in Saudi Arabia where the identity theft made possible by the Niqab was a major issue.
Anna, given that there were no neutral electoral observers (Iraq was too unsafe for them) I doubt if anyone will ever know how valid this election was, nor how many women voted wearing the veil (nor how many instances of identity theft occurred…)
Just trying to find out what party Ghassan al-Atiyyah represents was difficult enough (it’s either the National Independent Party – or possibly National Independence Party – or the Independent Iraqi Democrats). Given that he had to leave Iraq in late January because he was at risk of being killed for being a candidate, I am unsurprised that he was angry and frustrated enough to lose his temper at Chris Hitchens. (How often has Hitchens visited Iraq over the past two years?)
Interesting. From the link (sorry, a bit of a threadjack)
“When the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia,” Hitchens said, “they murdered the czar, his wife, and his children…so there would be no going back. Are you sure that’s what you want?”
This story was in the news a while ago, with the DNA match for the bones of the Romanovs (with Prince Phillip). Also (for the mathematicians in the room) there was a rather novel statistical proof that the 7 sets of remains were the Romanovs based on comparing the statistical possibility of the grouping of remains with the possibility of it occurring randomly, but googling doesn’t turn it up.
I also understood that the Czar and his family were executed because of the approach of the Czech Legion (whose existence led to the intervention of the Western powers in Siberia which Gary Farber mentioned in an earlier thread) to Ekaterinburg , so assigning the notion that they were killed because there was no turning back is probably a mis-statement.
A link to a summary of the diaries about the execution. Rather gory.
lj,
…the miserable sacrifice revealed that the women had expensive ornaments inside their clothing.
Yep. I’ve read that the reason why it took a while to kill the women was because the bullets would just bounce off the gems sewn in their dresses.
jes,
Anna, given that there were no neutral electoral observers (Iraq was too unsafe for them)
Hmm. But couldn’t they get the human shield groups to come in and “shield”?
Hmm. But couldn’t they get the human shield groups to come in and “shield”?
Why didn’t you volunteer, Stan?
Because he wasn’t a human shield.
Because he wasn’t a human shield.
So perhaps he shouldn’t make snarky remarks about people who were prepared to risk their lives?
Just wondering.
Jes,
Eh? Perhaps these people weren’t “prepared” since they consistently choose not to shield the people who are actually at high risk for being killed. None in Chechnya, non in Rwanda, none in Sudan, none in Algeria, and none in Iraq on the election day.
None were present in Fallujah, either. Any in Iran shielding the students? Hm.. Don’ think so.
Stan: Perhaps these people weren’t “prepared” since they consistently choose not to shield the people who are actually at high risk for being killed.
Neither do you, that I’ve seen. Or do you? I wouldn’t want to malign you if it’s not so, but as far as I know, you’ve stayed safely at home in the US.
“So perhaps he shouldn’t make snarky remarks about people who were prepared to risk their lives?”
First, I don’t think most people who were human shields thought they were actually risking their lives–certainly not as much as say Marines I know. Second, I can’t speak for Stan, but I’m perfectly willing to make snarky remarks about people who want to risk their lives with the theoretical purpose of protecting civilians, but the actual effect (if any) tending toward the protection of tyrants.
Jes,
That’s because I am not hypocrite.
Sebastian,
Ditto!
Stan: That’s because I am not hypocrite.
*shrug* You can call it that if you like, I suppose…
Jes,
By your logic you can’t criticize the POTUS, because you never ran for the office.
Stan, feel free to blather away on your own.
Anyone actually want to discuss the issue of American imperialism overriding Iraqi democracy, as raised in Totten’s blog?
Eh? How would the Iraqi democracy come about without the “American imperialism”?
Off topic: there is a great honking big article about extraordinary rendition in the New Yorker this week.
Can I request an open thread on it? Don’t want to hijack a thread on the Iraqi elections with my hobbyhorse, but it’s even further off topic everywhere else.
Stan: How would the Iraqi democracy come about without the “American imperialism”?
How can Iraqi democracy come about if American imperialism intends to override any electoral results it doesn’t like?
I hate to pick sides here, but it was my understanding that most of the so-called “human shields” hot-footed it right out of Iraq as soon as they discovered that the Iraqi government actually wanted them to protect potential high-value military targets rather than puppy farms, kindergartens and cotton candy factories. Was this not the case?
I don’t know – I was honestly not following the human shields in Iraq enough. You may well be right: if so, it was certainly as principled to leave as it was to go, since it’s no business of a human shield to protect military industries.
Jes,
since it’s no business of a human shield to protect military industries.
Ah! So they thought that US would target puppy farms, kindergartens and cotton candy factories???
Also, can you expand on the human shield “business” a bit? Like outside of Iraq/West Bank context?
Told you already, Stan, you’re welcome to blather on about this on your own all you like.
American imperialism overriding Iraqi democracy, eh?
“Told you already, Stan, you’re welcome to blather on about this on your own all you like.”
If you want to ignore Stan, please do so. No need to be rude about it.
rilke,
Thanks, but I understand Jes. Must be real hard to be civil to an American imperialist pig. 🙂
Rilke: No need to be rude about it.
You have a point, damn you. 🙂
Stan: Must be real hard to be civil to an American imperialist pig. 🙂
Are you? No, I was just annoyed that you wanted to discuss human shields instead of American imperialism. But if you are an American imperialist pig, that’s understandable.
Jes,
oink! oink!
Jeanne at Body and Soul has an excellent follow-up post on the Iraqi elections.
Jes,
Interesting post, but the One would almost think that the editors of the New York Times are looking at pictures Iraq, picking up all the details, and misreading the mood entirely. is rather naive. They are not “misreading the mood”, but are trying to create it at NYT.
As for Dahr Jamail’s, piece
“Coalition troops and Iraqi security forces may be responsible for up to 60% of conflict-related civilian deaths in Iraq — far more than are killed by insurgents, confidential records obtained by the BBC’s Panorama programme reveal.”
This was written on February the 2nd – 4 days *after* the:
The BBC apologised on Saturday for erroneously reporting that U.S.-led and Iraqi forces may be responsible for the deaths of 60 percent of Iraqi civilians killed in conflict over the last six months.
Honest mistake on Dahr’s part, or ..?
As for Hersh’s the number of tonnage dropped has grown exponentially. – no actual numbers are mentioned, so I am not sure how credible that statement is.
Jeez you guys this thread isn’t even about human shields. There is some pretty interesting and important stuff on the blog linked up thread. it’s worth reading. For one thing people shouldn’t be throwing the word “Taliban” around as if it meant any kind of Islamic religiously-oriented government. The Taliban was a specific entity. A Shia or Sunni government in Iraq is not the Taliban. Also think of the unbelieveable arrogance of the “We didn’t invade so you could elect that kind of government ” attitude. If we truely invaded to create democracy, then we have to live with the vote results. Otherwise it isn’t democracy. Maybe we shouldn’t havve invaded!
The Iraqis chose what they chose. If we don’t like it, so what. We either have to accept their decision or admit that we don’t want a real democracy, only a client state.
Which is it?
stan: They are not “misreading the mood”, but are trying to create it at NYT.
I hope they succeeded in creating a good mood at the New York Times. Obviously they would have made no difference one way or the other to the Iraqis, but I think creating a positive mood in your workplace is generally a good thing.
lily: Also think of the unbelieveable arrogance of the “We didn’t invade so you could elect that kind of government ” attitude. If we truely invaded to create democracy, then we have to live with the vote results. Otherwise it isn’t democracy.
Quite.
or admit that we don’t want a real democracy, only a client state.
I think it’s evident that Bush & Co wanted a client state, not a democracy. As Jeanne pointed out, he didn’t want even the present travesty of elections.
“I think it’s evident that Bush & Co wanted a client state, not a democracy.”
I don’t think that is evident at all. We don’t need a client state, want a non-crazy non-dictaorship. Hell, we could probably settle for a Jordan.
That picture looks staged…like everything else with this Iraqi Fiasco.
Sebastian: I don’t think that is evident at all.
How else do you explain Bush’s extreme reluctance to allow elections?
How else will you explain US refusal to abide by the results of the elections? (Assuming, of course, that Hitchen’s guess was right, and “we” didn’t invade Iraq to let them decide on their own government.)
Jordan would not let us plant our milirtary in their nation.
Iraq was the only one we had an excuse to invade and freedomize.
Nationalizing Anglo-American companies (see Chile and the rest of Latin America’s freedomization programs), especially oil companies (see Iran, Iraq) will force the anger of the Anglo-American Freedom Fascists & Lynch Mob Inc.
I’m not sure I understand that last sentence.
Anglo-American Freedom Fascists & Lynch Mob Inc.
is a metaphor for the political policy of the United States and United Kingdom toward the Developing World.
A nations’ depravity and character is relative to the way they treat Anglo-American companies.
Neo,
Can you expand on that?
Here’s a start:
American Imperialism in Latin America
Imperial America
During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the United States pursued an aggressive policy of expansionism
American Imperialism always had the public believe they were spending blood and oil on Civilization and Christianity (now Capitalism and Democracy), while the profits certain companies saved and/or made, were incidental or deserved.
I will comback with our freedomizing Iran, Iraq, Egypt and more.
Cheney’s business dealings are, saved and/or made, are incidental or deserved.
Halliburton, Dick Cheney, and Wartime Spoils
that’s supposed to be “blood and treasure”.
Between the end of the Spanish-American War and the dawn of the Great Depression, the United States sent troops to Latin American countries thirty-two times. It used the Roosevelt Corollary, or addition, to the Monroe Doctrine to justify intervention. In the corollary, Teddy Roosevelt proclaimed that the United States, because it was a “civilized nation,” had the right to stop “chronic wrongdoing” throughout the Western Hemisphere.
“Any country whose people conduct themselves well can count upon our hearty friendship,” he said. “Chronic wrongdoing, however, . . . may force the United States to exercise an international police power.” Teddy didn’t hesitate to use this “police power” to strengthen his country, but he was always careful not to upset the balance of world power.
William Howard Taft, former governor of the Philippines, followed Roosevelt into the White House. Taft believed in economic expansion, and he introduced a policy called “dollar diplomacy.” This policy used diplomacy to advance and protect American businesses in other countries. Taft employed Roosevelt’s corollary in Nicaragua and other Latin American countries to protect American investments.
More:
U.S. Imperialism in Latin America
What do you believe Cheney’s holdings in Halliburton are?
Yes I think a Jordan with Allawi as king would have been acceptable to many supporters of this war. But such a government would have been a client state, only minimally democratic, which undercuts the whole “making a democracy, we aren’t here to stay ” rationalization for the war.
The Iraqis didn’t vote for a crazy dictator. They voted for a Shia coalition that will probably institute Sharia law in non-Kurd parts of Iraq. They might strike a deal with the Kurds and give them some kind of independence. However, whatever they decide is their right, their decision. Too bad so sad if Bush’s megalomainia isn’t satisfied. If, of all the lies, deceptions, rationalizations and excuses for this war the “making a democracy” line is going to be believed, then we have to abide by their decision.
one source has him at
Cheney, who served as CEO from 1995 to 2000, continues to receive as much as $1 million a year in deferred compensation as Halliburton executives enjoy a seat at the table during Administration discussions over how to handle post-war oil production in Iraq.
What do your sources say?
Cheney, refusing to give the Clinton administration any credit for his own prosperity, or the nation’s, replied that his new wealth “had nothing to do with the government.”
The assertion was disingenuous, as in fact Halliburton’s growth and Dick Cheney’s own $37 million stock and option windfall were directly related to profits made with the help of foreign aid packages and military contracts. Cheney’s own connections from a long career in government clearly played a role in the company’s success. Moreover, the chuckling after this understated paean to private sector superiority helped to obscure the fact that Dick Cheney’s Halliburton has succeeded by partnering or engaging with governments around the world-including some of the most repressive regimes in the world-and its complicity with egregious human rights violations.
From:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Oil_watch/Cheney_Halliburton.html
Firm’s Iraq Deals Greater Than Cheney Has Said
Washington Post | June 23, 2001
During last year’s presidential campaign, Richard B. Cheney acknowledged that the oil-field supply corporation he headed, Halliburton Co., did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries. But he insisted that he had imposed a “firm policy” against trading with Iraq.
“Iraq’s different,” he said.
According to oil industry executives and confidential United Nations records, however, Halliburton held stakes in two firms that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer of the Dallas-based company.
From:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2001/0627chen.htm
I think he and many others are making good money.
God knows, what this is about:
Cheney’s Path: From Gulf War to Mideast Oil
In Business, He Benefited From His Pentagon Days
Mr. Cheney called in June for the lifting of U.S. sanctions on Iran. He called relations between Iran and the United States a ”tragedy,” adding that one of the best ways to improve ties would be ”to allow American firms to do the same thing that most other firms around the world are able to do now, and that is to be active in Iran.”
He added, ”We’re kept out of there primarily by our own government, which has made a decision that U.S. firms should not be allowed to invest significantly in Iran, and I think that’s a mistake.”
Under Mr. Cheney, Halliburton has become a leading member of USA Engage, a lobbying group that seeks to lift sanctions. Halliburton is also a member of the board of the National Foreign Trade Council, a lobbying group that recently won a victory in the Supreme Court, which struck down a Massachusetts state law imposing state sanctions on companies doing business in Burma.
Mr. Cheney’s company has already done business in countries still facing U.S. sanctions, including Libya and Iraq, the enemy Mr. Cheney helped vanquish in the Gulf War.
Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump Co., joint ventures that Halliburton has sold within the past year, have done work in Iraq on contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq’s oil industry, under the United Nation’s Oil for Food program.
More:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3981d4da7d19.htm
was that to long?
Cindy Sheehan, mother of Spc Casey Austin Sheehan KIA 04/04/04:
Though to the Iraqis whose country is being destroyed around them, and who have to listen to Americans safe at home telling them that if they vote the wrong way their decision will be overruled, Ms Sheehan’s loss is just an every day event… but she’s right to ask: How long are people willing to put up with Bush never being asked to account for his lies?
Houzan Mahmoud, an Iraqi living in Britain, is the United Kingdom head of the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq:
Tears of joy?
Oops, broken link. read the rest
We don’t need a client state, want a non-crazy non-dictaorship. Hell, we could probably settle for a Jordan.
Man, if only Bush et al. had used that as their slogan to sell the invasion. “Truth, Justice and the Jordanian Way!” Would’ve been a damn sight more honest than what they did… which is, of course, probably why they didn’t.
“In reality, these elections are, for Iraq’s women, little more than a cruel joke.”
Quick question. Is that more or less likely with an agressive US pullout from Iraq?
Sebastian: Is that more or less likely with an agressive US pullout from Iraq?
Given that the US military is currently fighting an unwinnable war in Iraq, I cannot see what difference it will make one way or another.
Since that isn’t a given, I’m not sure what your answer is.
Sebastian: Since that isn’t a given
What? US defeat in Iraq? It’s a given. A foreign army of occupation/conquest cannot win against a local opposition with popular support: and the longer the US occupation remains in Iraq, the more popular support they win for the insurgency.
If you doubt this, Sebastian, would you like to explain how the US occupation can win in Iraq, when 85% of the population just want them to go away?
“A foreign army of occupation/conquest cannot win against a local opposition with popular support:”
Hmm, I would dispute this on all sorts of grounds. The US is not a position of conquest. Whether or not it is an army of occupation for the indefinite future depends on its long term relationship with the Iraqi government unless you would suggest that we are currently ‘occupying’ South Korea for instance. The idea that a foreign army CANNOT win against local opposition with popular support is well not even remotely true unless you are willing to discount the entire history of conquering armies or unless you have incredibly broad definitions of ‘local opposition’, ‘popular support’, and ‘win’.
In short your statement is so amorphous as to not even provide grounds to substantively argue with.
Jes,
If the support is so popular then why is the #1 terrorist in Iraq a… Jordanian? The suicide bomber who blew himself up in the mess hall… a Saudi?
Recently a boy with down syndrome was used as a suicide bomber. Sounds pretty desperate and not that “popular”.
Sebastian: The US is not a position of conquest.
*shrug* That’s not what it looks like (quite evidently) to the Iraqis.
Whether or not it is an army of occupation for the indefinite future depends on its long term relationship with the Iraqi government
Actually, it rather depends on what it looks like to the Iraqis, not just to their government. Especially as they’ve yet to elect a government, and have no idea if their conquerors and occupiers will permit them to elect a government which will be allowed to tell the US occupation to get out. Or if the US occupation will go, if told to do so, and quit bombing Iraq, too.
The idea that a foreign army CANNOT win against local opposition with popular support is well not even remotely true
Show me an instance in, say, the past fifty years in which it has been true, then.
==
Stan, if your idea of “popular support” equates to “suicide bomber”… I cannot comment on this: I would break the posting rules were I to try. Would you argue that Bush’s administration has “popular support”? If so, how many Americans are willing to be suicide bombers for Bush, and if not, how can you argue that Bush’s administration has “popular support” – since your idea of “popular support” is “willing to be a suicide bomber”?
Interesting cut off period, afraid to give me 65 years so I can Japan and Germany? Korea. Tibet.
Sebastian: Interesting cut off period, afraid to give me 65 years so I can Japan and Germany? Korea. Tibet.
Tibet I’ll give you: is it your impression that the US plans to conquer Iraq by importing hordes of American peasants to take over? In any case, fair point: it is possible for an army of conquest/occupation to win against local resistence if the conquerors manage to get the sovereign ruler and incarnate deity to sign a peace agreement to give them sufficient time to utterly destroy the country’s culture, exile many of the country’s native inhabitants, and forcibly expatriate large numbers of the conquering country’s inhabitants to live in the conquered country.
Not a particularly good comparison to Iraq, especially as there’s no possibility of territorially-integrating Iraq with the US in order to make this expansion possible, but, yes, if the US wants to imitate China’s conquest of Tibet with its own conquest of Iraq, and if that is your definition of the US “winning”, it’s still possible for the US to “win” in Iraq. Is it?
Neither in Japan nor in Germany was there local resistence against the invading/conquering armies once the governments had surrendered. So those examples fall.
As for Korea, you’ll have to be rather more specific: once you move outside the convenient fifty-year boundary line, that country has rather a lot of history to deal with.
Jes,
since your idea of “popular support” is “willing to be a suicide bomber”?
What are you quoting from?
Where are you quoting from, rather.
Neither in Japan nor in Germany was there local resistence against the invading/conquering armies once the governments had surrendered. So those examples fall.
Actually, Jes, there was a resistance movement in Germany called werwolf. It’s disputed how much violence was the result of that program and how much was the kind of violence created by the social dislocation that came with the Occupation. However, both West Germany and Korea had ‘enemies’ on their border, which changed the dynamic a bit, I think.
As for the 50 year cut off, I don’t think we are willing to take the steps that were taken in previous eras to enforce our will, and I am relatively sure that Iraqis would not stand for it if we did, based on Hitchens’ encounter.
Actually, Jes, there was a resistance movement in Germany called werwolf. It’s disputed how much violence was the result of that program and how much was the kind of violence created by the social dislocation that came with the Occupation.
I always believed (from history lessons, but also from stories by people who lived through it, including my mother in law who worked for the intelligence service and later in occupied germany because she was fluent in german) that the werwolves were hardly noticable.
Stan asked: What are you quoting from?
You, at February 8, 2005 06:59 PM, where you equate popular support with “willing to be a suicide bomber”.
liberalj: Actually, Jes, there was a resistance movement in Germany called werwolf.
What DutchMarbel said: from all contemporary accounts, the werewolves were never a serious problem.
Jes,
where you equate popular support with “willing to be a suicide bomber”.
I do not, I was merely showing some examples of the “Iraqi resistance” not being actually “Iraqi”. Can you name just one Iraqi leader of the Iraqi resistance?
Stan: I do not
It may not have been what you meant, but it’s certainly what you said.
Can you name just one Iraqi leader of the Iraqi resistance?
Muqtada al-Sadr.
Shaykh Abd-al-Wahhab Isma’il al-Janabi of the Association of Muslim Scholars would seem to count as an Iraqi leader of the Iraqi resistance. And the US Military keeps insisting that the old guy with the bad kidneys – Izzat Ibrahim? – is a ringleader. That’s why we kept “detaining” his wife and daughter.
A more interesting question, touching on the issue of Pentagon news management, is why you can’t name an Iraqi leader of the Iraqi resistance. Mind you, this may also touch on the issue of the worth of what we’re pleased to call our intelligence on the enemy too.
Cane the Wogs!
Cane the Wogs! – Michael Totten and Christopher Hitchens give a few friendly Iraqis what-for. Note that in Totten’s gloss…