Comments on: Iraq: Liberated at Last?

By: Shafiq

Shafiq — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:50:34 +0000

Yes, everyone is wrong apart from the great Programmer Craig.

By: Nth_Republic

Nth_Republic — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:29:16 +0000

Indeed. The fact that some of the most violent Salafist and Wahhabist militant groups that operate in Iraq can't shake the idea that all Shia (who, as we all know, constitute the vast majority of Iraq's citizenry) are apostates will be an insurmountable problem until all these groups are snuffed out and the foreign fighters that bolster their ranks prevented from entering the country. On the fact that I brought up the "Tito" argument: often people who support the invasion and occupation of Iraq, when presented with this argument, will respond that the current situation was impossible to predict, but that's completely false. In fact, many political analysts did in fact predict this very scenario, and even invoked Tito's name in their speculation. Here's one example, from an article written in November of 2002 (I'm not endorsing everything the author writes): Iraq is not a nation. It is a petty, despotic empire. Unlike other multicultural states-such as Switzerland and the U.S., to cite two of the only successful examples of such a government-Iraq has not existed for centuries, carefully balancing the interests of different ethnic groups and religions through decentralized, liberal government. Quite the opposite-it's an artificial creation of colonial mapmakers, designed by foreigners to suit their interests, which can only be held together, to all appearances, by a tyrannical regime that represses minorities. In other words, it's a lot like Tito's Yugoslavia-and remember what happened, and is still happening, there. Should the U.S. invade, it will become our responsibility to create and maintain a stable regime. All failures will be rightly laid at the feet of the American government, and resentments throughout the Arab and Moslem world will be aimed at Americans-not just American soldiers or policymakers, but at innocent civilians who work in skyscrapers, American tourists on vacation, American businessman and women working abroad.

By: Lena

Lena — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:25:17 +0000

For that reason, and its resulting consequences, we must ask ourselves if the human rights justifications for removing Hussein, in contravention of international law, outweigh the gross damage that has been done to Iraq as direct result of the invasion.

very well put. It is pretty embarassing what is going on as the conflicts are sectarian and religious. These things could have been avoided despite the illegal U.S inteference and overthrow/occupation of Iraq. The fact of the matter is, It's very difficult for many 'conservative' Muslims to be tolerant of eachother and don't find the other 'sect' legitimate, thus refusing to live under their leadership, etc. There really is strong tension between sunnis and shiites and we can see a great example of that with Saudia Arabia and Iran's relationship. In the UK Times, it was reported that Saudia would 'turn a blind eye' if Israel decides to send air missiles across it to Iran…….

By: Super Sayyin

Super Sayyin — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:28:07 +0000

Eagle, we invaded Iraq, destroyed their infrastructure, destroyed all their institutions (including their military and police), killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, thus creating a power vacuum that allowed para-military groups to roam free in the streets. Oh yea, and this is all after more than a decade of sanctions that led to the deaths of almost a million Iraqi children, not to mention the malnourishment and the diseases that go with it (blindness, stunted growth, mental retardation) to many millions more.

In the meantime we allowed a civil war to escalate and didn't even bother to calm it down despite our superior military power. Quite simply put, a million Iraqi's would still be alive, millions more would still have their limbs, while many millions more would not be refugee's, if we had not invaded Iraq.

And please don't try to justify the invasion of Iraq by saying that Saddam does not respect human rights. If thats the case, we have dozens of countries that are need of regime change from China to Burma, to Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Furthermore, according to international law the occupying power (that means the United States) is responsible for all the atrocities that take place in the country under occupation.

So once again I call upon you to apologize to the millions of victims living in Iraq. Its beyond disgusting watching you stand here and try to defend the invasion of Iraq and the genocide that took place. You have proven once again how much human life means nothing to you.

By: Super Sayyin

Super Sayyin — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:15:04 +0000

Saddams crimes against humanities cannot even come close to what we did in Iraq. Thats a fact Eagle, its time for you to stop ducking the truth and deal with it. This is on top of the fact that most of his crimes were committed when we were best friends with the man.

Its so disgusting how you completely ignore the truth and keep spouting this ignorant propaganda.

Oh and btw, Saddam was more afraid of Iran and Osama than he was of the United States according to the FBI:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/0…

He actually thought he would sign a security pact with the United States to protect himself, once again according to the FBI.

By: Nth_Republic

Nth_Republic — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:39:16 +0000

I don't know whose views you are using for that analysis, but clearly not mine. The US is responsible for what the US did, and the "jihadists" were responsible for what they did. That's my position. I didn't name anyone in my post other than eagle007, but in some ways I agree with you that the U.S. is responsible for its actions, and the individual paramilitary organizations operating in Iraq are responsible for their actions, though I would reiterate what I said in my post that I feel the U.S. created the conditions that allowed those paramilitaries to operate, and so enabled to them to commit those actions. Just to be clear, I was quoting eagle007 who first used the term "jihad" in this discussion, and later "Jihadist". I full well realize there are a multitude of militant groups in Iraq cut from widely differing ideological cloth, and that's exactly the reason Iraq is in the situation it's in right now. There isn't anything "misguided" about resisting an occupation, and your classification of the "four" paramilitary types is severely lacking in depth and leaves no room for some of the groups that were around before the invasion, unless for example, you are putting the PKK (pre-invasion, Kurdish separatist) and Ansar al-Sunna (post-invasion, Salafist) in category "b", which is a grossly simplistic and ultimately incorrect analysis. It seems you aren't "in the middle" as much as you think you are, because I opposed invading Iraq. I don't believe it is my countries duty to "do the right thing" in other countries, just for the sake of having done the right thing. Most especially when nobody is asking us to intervene, and when we don't have legitimate cause. Sorry if I wasn't clear on this, so I'll define my stance now: I didn't support the invasion of Iraq either, despite the fact that I enlisted after we had invaded, and knew that I would be deployed. By "we did the right thing from a human rights standpoint" I meant just that; in terms solely of human rights, Iraq was a better place without Saddam Hussein. However, human rights isn't the only factor that matters, rarely does it hold the trump card, and the United States is not the world's police force. As you alluded to, it was not our right to remove Hussein (especially in contravention of international law and without the UN's endorsement), and the reasons for invasion weren't human rights-based anyway. I do, however, believe in human rights interventions in some cases; Rwanda in '94 would be a good example.

By: programmer craig

programmer craig — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 08:06:32 +0000

I don't know whose views you are using for that analysis, but clearly not mine. The US is responsible for what the US did, and the "jihadists" were responsible for what they did. That's my position.

But lets be clear – what you are referring to as "jihadists" were and are actually the following:

a) former baathists who could care less about Islam but didn't like being out of power

b) a bunch of terrorists and common criminals (these two groups always are found working together)

c) a few misguided individuals who actually considered themselves to be legitimate resists

d) death squads and sectarian militias that were formed as a response to a, b and c and not as a response to the US presence in Iraq

My view, as I lie somewhere between idealism and Realpolitik, is appropriately somewhere "in the middle". From a purely human rights standpoint, the United States "did the right thing" by ousting Saddam Hussein, though we clearly violated international law to do so.

It seems you aren't "in the middle" as much as you think you are, because I opposed invading Iraq. I don't believe it is my countries duty to "do the right thing" in other countries, just for the sake of having done the right thing. Most especially when nobody is asking us to intervene, and when we don't have legitimate cause. I'm just here to call bullshit on the apologists for terrorism on this blog who try to blame atrocities committed by the people they support on my country.

By: Nth_Republic

Nth_Republic — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 06:53:25 +0000

The conversation in the comments thread of this post, like most commentary regarding the Iraq war, has been dominated by two extreme viewpoints within American opinion. That is, that the United States is wholly responsible for all the death and destruction in post-invasion Iraq, or that the "Jihadists" are wholly responsible for the same. My view, as I lie somewhere between idealism and Realpolitik, is appropriately somewhere "in the middle". From a purely human rights standpoint, the United States "did the right thing" by ousting Saddam Hussein, though we clearly violated international law to do so. He was, indisputably, a brutal, murderous dictator who persecuted the Shia majority and had a penchant for massacring Kurds and political opponents, often by means outlawed by the Geneva Protocol. However, the reality of Iraq is that sectarian division has been a defining factor of that nation's society for a long time, despite what eagle007 intimated, which is that the "Jihadists" are the ones manufacturing and fomenting it. This reality is what makes the "Josip Broz Tito" argument against the invasion of Iraq so sound — that is, that Hussein, for all his brutality, had his foot on the necks of the ethnic and religious nationalists and political Shi'ism movements that would have undoubtedly torn Iraq in pieces (which is what we are seeing now). With Hussein gone, the vipers are out in full force, more intent on striking at one another and at the U.S.-backed government than they are on striking at the occupation forces. The bottom line in this, of course, is that we Americans are the ones that removed Hussein and thus created the conditions for this "snake pit". For that reason, and its resulting consequences, we must ask ourselves if the human rights justifications for removing Hussein, in contravention of international law, outweigh the gross damage that has been done to Iraq as direct result of the invasion. My feeling is that the former do not outweigh the latter.

I'm not sure about raw casualty statistics, and while I think it's fair to say that the Iraqi civilian casualty figures given by the American forces are grossly under-reported, I believe that ultimately, the direct responsibility (that is, the people who actually carried out the killing) for the bulk of the civilian death toll lies with the sectarian paramilitary organizations that focus their attacks on civilian targets, such as mosque and market bombings.

I truly hope that Iraq emerges from this crisis a strong, proud nation, and can begin to mend its internal ethnic, religious, and other sectarian wounds. I also hope it manages to do so without becoming a U.S. puppet state. However, despite a gradual drop-off in casualty figures since 2004-2005 (when I was there) and 2006-2007, I'm not convinced the violence is in a steady decline, nor that those elements in Iraq that don't care to join the democratic process are going to end their fight any time soon, nor that the Iraqi Armed Forces necessarily have the capability to stop them.

One last important thing to note: we need to be diligent regarding the "troop withdrawal". I was linked by someone to a short report on the Fox news website about U.S. Army units being relocated on June 30th, as part of the withdrawal from major cities, from Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) within Baghdad proper to a place called "Camp War Eagle", which Fox declared to be "on the outskirts of Baghdad". During my tour in Iraq, I was all over the place, participating in Operation Phantom Fury in Falluja from November 2004 to January 2005, conducting missions in Mosul, Kurdistan, Samarra, Nasiriyah, and just about every corner of Iraq, but I was based mostly at a place called Camp Cuervo (also called Camp Muleskinner and Camp Rustimayah — FOBs often change names when new units take them over), also located on the "outskirts of Baghdad", about 2.5 kilometers southeast of Sadr City. Camp War Eagle is right next to Sadr City; literally, Route Gold (I believe was the name, I might have it wrong… it's been a few years) runs along the eastern edge of Sadr City, with the west side of the street being slums and the east side of the street being the western wall of War Eagle. War Eagle, from 2004-2005, served as the main combat operations base for all of Sadr City, and probably still does. My point is that while American troops may indeed be withdrawing from within city limits as defined by Iraqi local laws, they're simply being reassigned to major bases right next door, not to bases out in the middle of nowhere, so the American military presence is still just as high. War Eagle was under constant bombardment from mortars and rockets, even more so than Camp Cuervo, which averaged probably around five or six indirect fire attacks per day when I was there, so don't be surprised if the troops at War Eagle are "requested to respond" by the Iraqi Armed Forces/Iraqi Police to attacks on the Camp as they normally would've under the pre-"withdrawal from cities" conditions.

By: Nth_Republic

Nth_Republic — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 06:52:10 +0000

The conversation in the comments thread of this post, like most commentary regarding the Iraq war, has been dominated by two extreme viewpoints within American opinion. That is, that the United States is wholly responsible for all the death and destruction in post-invasion Iraq, or that the "Jihadists" are wholly responsible for the same. My view, as I lie somewhere between idealism and Realpolitik, is appropriately "in the middle". From a purely human rights standpoint, the United States "did the right thing" by ousting Saddam Hussein, though we clearly violated international law to do so. He was, indisputably, a brutal, murderous dictator who persecuted the Shia majority and had a penchant for massacring Kurds and political opponents, often by means outlawed by the Geneva Protocol. However, the reality of Iraq is that sectarian division has been a defining factor of that nation's society for a long time, despite what eagle007 intimated, which is that the "Jihadists" are the ones manufacturing and fomenting it. This reality is what makes the "Josip Broz Tito" argument against the invasion of Iraq so sound — that is, that Hussein, for all his brutality, had his foot on the necks of the ethnic and religious nationalists and political Shi'ism movements that would have undoubtedly torn Iraq in pieces (which is what we are seeing now). With Hussein gone, the vipers are out in full force, more intent on striking at one another and at the U.S.-backed government than they are on striking at the occupation forces. The bottom line in this, of course, is that we Americans are the ones that removed Hussein and thus created the conditions for this "snake pit". For that reason, and its resulting consequences, we must ask ourselves if the human rights justifications for removing Hussein, in contravention of international law, outweigh the gross damage that has been done to Iraq as direct result of the invasion. My feeling is that the former do not outweigh the latter.

By: Nth_Republic

Nth_Republic — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 06:45:48 +0000

The conversation in the comments thread of this post, like most commentary regarding the Iraq war, has been dominated by two extreme viewpoints within American opinion. That is, that the United States is wholly responsible for all the death and destruction in post-invasion Iraq, or that the "Jihadists" are wholly responsible for the same. My view, as I lie somewhere between idealism and Realpolitik, is complex and simple at the same time. From a purely human rights standpoint, the United States "did the right thing" by ousting Saddam Hussein, though we clearly violated international law to do so. He was, indisputably, a brutal, murderous dictator who persecuted the Shia majority and had a penchant for massacring Kurds and political opponents, often by means outlawed by the Geneva Protocol. However, the reality of Iraq is that sectarian division has been a defining factor of that nation's society for a long time, despite what eagle007 intimated, which is that the "Jihadists" are the ones manufacturing and fomenting it. This reality is what makes the "Josip Broz Tito" argument against the invasion of Iraq so sound — that is, that Hussein, for all his brutality, had his foot on the necks of the ethnic and religious nationalists and political Shi'ism movements that would have undoubtedly torn Iraq in pieces (which is what we are seeing now). With Hussein gone, the vipers are out in full force, more intent on striking at one another and at the U.S.-backed government than they are on striking at the occupation forces. The bottom line in this, of course, is that we Americans are the ones that removed Hussein and thus created the conditions for this "snake pit". For that reason, and its resulting consequences, we must ask ourselves if the human rights justifications for removing Hussein, in contravention of international law, outweigh the gross damage that has been done to Iraq as direct result of the invasion. My feeling is that the former do not outweigh the latter.