Iraq: Liberated at Last?
The drawback of American troops from major cities is a promising development, but I would not get too excited.
The Iraqi government proclaimed it ‘National Sovereignty Day’ and partied like it was God’s birthday. The manufacturing of national holidays propagated with contrived symbolic meaning is eerily familiar.
Still, if anything, this occasion gives Iraqis something to celebrate. And God knows they need something. Bankrupt American policies such as the crushing sanctions — with United Nations complicity — since 1990, and the heartless invasion, added more misery to the tyrannical governance for the Saddam Hussein regime.
However, it is too soon to celebrate too much. Withdrawal plans ahead, framing it as a full withdrawal by the end of 2011, are less a liberation of Iraq from American control than they are a ‘de-surge,’ a redeployment of less troops, or ‘advisers,’ to maintain control over Iraq. While 130,000 remain now, after the full withdrawal, tens of thousands will likely stay behind (though the government is vague about the number).
While even Defense Secretary Gates expects isolated acts of violence as troops are moved around, the temptation by Americans to keep its hand in Iraq would back-fire over the long-haul. Iraq, unlike Saudi Arabia, will not tolerate an embedded American hand for too long.
With the American right waiting for any hint of policy failure, the Obama administration will likely play it safe by overplaying the American presence of Iraq. While that may give short-term political benefits, it will not survive, as no country can sacrifice its sovereignty for long without major destabilization.
I just hope the outcome is positive this time and this is not some kind of ploy.
Was eagles post supposed to be some sort of big joke?
Yes, lets congratulate the people that invaded a country, killed a million people, while creating 4 million refugee's that flooded neighboring countries, thus putting a huge strain on the entire region.
Not to mention before committing this massive crime against humanity, this same country, unleashed a regime of sanctions that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children while millions more suffered the effects of malnourishment (stunted growth, blindness, mental retardation etc). We destroyed a country, a people, and created a new wave of extremism the effects of which we will feel in the future. Its time for you right wing nut jobs to accept that.
Anyway, back to the topic. The USA won't leave Iraq until its all out of oil, not because we need Iraqi oil but because we don't want anyone else getting their grubby hands on it =P
Touche!
Yes, lets congratulate the people that invaded a country, killed a million people…
It was those freedom fighters you were cheering on who killed them, Super Sayyin. You proud?
Sorry PC but your wrong again.
We in the United States came to Iraq, destroyed all its infrastructure (hospitals, water treatment facilities, roads, power stations, schools etc), killed hundreds of thousands of civilians directly, killed hundreds of thousands indirectly, wounded millions more directly, and created one of the biggest refugee crisis on the planet.
Then we destroyed the fabric of their society, which created a power void. Then we stepped back and let them fight over who would be in power, and in many cases we fanned the flames. Also, according to international law, the occupying power is responsible for all the violence that occurs after it destroys and occupies a country. Don't try to duck responsibility from the genocide that took place in Iraq PC.
If we had minded our own fucking business there would not be over a million dead Iraqi's, millions of cripples and amputee's, nor would there be a refugee crisis unlike any we have seen in decades.
Seriously, PC we all know you don't have any sense of morality. So please stfu and stop trolling for all of our sakes, at least stop for all the innocent dead children. In fact why don't you give them a moment of silence.
Sorry PC but your wrong again.
I've been wrong about Iraq, before. But that was when I was trying to predict the the future. That's not the case here. We are talking about the past. And what has happened in Iraq is well known to anyone who has been paying attention, and who is honest. You are telling a lot of lies down in here:
We in the United States came to Iraq, destroyed all its infrastructure (hospitals, water treatment facilities, roads, power stations, schools etc), killed hundreds of thousands of civilians directly, killed hundreds of thousands indirectly, wounded millions more directly, and created one of the biggest refugee crisis on the planet.
That's all a lie. In most parts of Iraq, people never even saw an American during 2003. How do you figure we destroyed the infrastructure, in areas we bypassed in their entirety? And how do you figure we killed "hundreds of thousands" of people, during the invasion? With all those thousands of embedded reporters? How do you figure we managed that and nobody noticed, SuperSayyin?
You don't even believe this shit yourself, so why do you expect anyone else to? It's offensive for you to lie on this blog as obviously and as often as you do. You insult the intelligence not just of the readers, but of any of the bloggers who might actually be interested in having real discussions.
So I ask again: Does it make you proud, having supported "freedom fighters" who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis? Look at you, defending them and blaming their behavior on the US, even now. Even knowing all the mayhem and misery they caused, you think it was justified. You are a very disturbed individual, SuperSayyin. I only hope you receive what you've sown, sooner or later.
There was no genocide in Iraq – after Saddam http://links-e.blogspot.com/2009/07/saddams-cruel... was gone that is.
After Saddam's regime was removed, tha country has been rebuilt and democracy made possible – with the terrorists fighting it at every turn, causing needless suffering and death. But obviously you have no criticisms for the criminals who try to sabotage progress every chance they can. These evil people have obviously lost and the Iraqis reject them, but still they kill.
Super Sayyin you owe an apology to all those who have lost family members to the violence of these terrorists you seem to be supporting.
There was no genocide in Iraq – after Saddam was gone that is.
After Saddam's regime was removed, the country has been rebuilt and democracy made possible – with the terrorists fighting it at every turn, causing needless suffering and death. But obviously you have no criticisms for the criminals who try to sabotage progress every chance they can. These evil people have obviously lost and the Iraqis reject them, but still they kill.
I suppose you could compare what the terrorists did with their tactic of trying to turn Iraqis against each each other along sectarian lines to genocide.
Super Sayyin you owe an apology to all those who have lost family members to the violence of these terrorists you seem to be supporting.
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.
Massive crimes against humanity were committed by Saddam Hussein http://links-e.blogspot.com/ not the United States who led the coalition to remove him.
Crimes against humanity were committed by the terrorist insurgents,including the thousands of foreign fighter who came to wage war against the Iraqi people, blowing them up in markets and mosques and public streets – and to wage a useless war that caused needless suffering and death.
These wicked terrorists resorted to the tactic of turning Iraqis against each other in an attempt to sabotage Iraqi unity and the political process by causing sectarian divides.
Have you forgotten how they blew up mosques and funerals? But that is not a crime against humanity according to your twisted reasoning.
According to your twisted reasoning, there is no reason to keep Iraq's oil revenues out of the hands of terrorists who would use it to finance their wars on the world – not to mention the disruptions and problems they could cause to the world's economy. Apparently, according to your twisted reasoning, the effects of protecting the oil and allowing the Iraqi people to be free is WORSE than allowing the country and its people to be taken over by criminal terrorists who would terrorize and oppress the people and cause untold warfare in the world. What's the matter with you?
Massive crimes against humanity were committed by Saddam Hussein not the United States who led the coalition to remove him.
Crimes against humanity were committed by the terrorist insurgents,including the thousands of foreign fighter who came to wage war against the Iraqi people, blowing them up in markets and mosques and public streets – and to wage a useless war that caused needless suffering and death.
These wicked terrorists resorted to the tactic of turning Iraqis against each other in an attempt to sabotage Iraqi unity and the political process by causing sectarian divides.
Have you forgotten how they blew up mosques and funerals? But that is not a crime against humanity according to your twisted reasoning.
According to your twisted reasoning, there is no reason to keep Iraq's oil revenues out of the hands of terrorists who would use it to finance their wars on the world – not to mention the disruptions and problems they could cause to the world's economy. Apparently, according to your twisted reasoning, the effects of protecting the oil and allowing the Iraqi people to be free is WORSE than allowing the country and its people to be taken over by criminal terrorists who would terrorize and oppress the people and cause untold warfare in the world. What's the matter with you?
Massive crimes against humanity were committed by Saddam Hussein not the United States who led the coalition to remove him.
Crimes against humanity were committed by the terrorist insurgents,including the thousands of foreign fighters who came to wage war against the Iraqi people, blowing them up in markets and mosques and public streets – and to wage a useless war that caused needless suffering and death.
These wicked terrorists resorted to the tactic of turning Iraqis against each other in an attempt to sabotage Iraqi unity and the political process by causing sectarian divides.
Have you forgotten how they blew up mosques and funerals? But that is not a crime against humanity according to your twisted reasoning.
According to your twisted reasoning, there is no reason to keep Iraq's oil revenues out of the hands of terrorists who would use it to finance their wars on the world – not to mention the disruptions and problems they could cause to the world's economy. Apparently, according to your twisted reasoning, the effects of protecting the oil and allowing the Iraqi people to be free is WORSE than allowing the country and its people to be taken over by criminal terrorists who would terrorize and oppress the people and cause untold warfare in the world. What's the matter with you?
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.
Bankrupt American policies such as the crushing sanctions? What if sanctions had worked? That statement is the epitome of hypocrisy. (Do you think they should use sanctions against Iran's nuclear program before just serving them up bigtime?)
Funny how your types only have criticism for the good guys, but not a single bad thing to say about those who really are to blame – the terrorist insurgents – who your types have been calling "freedom fighters" until not too long ago.
Liberation of Iraq means liberation from tyrannical rulers as well as liberation from criminal and terrorist Islamic extremists who have been trying so hard to take over. Now ask yourself – how was all of this liberation made possible???
The success of this pull-back depends upon the Iraqi military's ability to handle the insurgent violence (the insurgents who many were calling freedom fighters). Now it has become obvious that the insurgents are against the Iraqi people.
Who trained this Iraqi miltary? If they need help, who will they call? That's right: the good guys you are always criticizing.
The liberation of Iraq will give Iraqis the ability to resist the evil desires of the Islamic extremists who want to enslave the people. Why do you never criticize these dirtbags who cause all of this violence?
So the invasion of Iraq is the Iraqis' fault? You honestly think the Americans are the good guys in this situation? Give me a break, dude!
I like how you set out to put all the blame on the modern-day Iraqi Patriots you so eloquently labeled as "Terrorist Insurgents." I can totally see the British saying the same thing about the American colonists who fought so bravely and often resorted to guerilla warfare tactics in defending their lands against the world's most powerful army. These Americans were fighting to defend their lives, their homes, their families, and their freedom from an wanted and resented military power over their lands. Granted, the Iraq war is NOT a war of independence, but the parralels exists nonetheless.
I like how you set out to put all the blame on the modern-day Iraqi Patriots you so eloquently labeled as "Terrorist Insurgents."
Patriots? The people who murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis are "Patriots"? Have you tried telling that to some Iraqis?
I can totally see the British saying the same thing about the American colonists who fought so bravely…
The American Revolutionaries didn't butcher American colonists by the tens of thousands as their primary modus operandi, Carlos. Just how out of touch with what's been happening in Iraq the last 5 years are you?
So the invasion of Iraq is the Iraqis' fault?
No, the invasion of Iraq was Saddam Hussein's fault.
You honestly think the Americans are the good guys in this situation?
Yes, clearly they are. They have freed the Iraqi people and allowed them to have representative government. You say the Americans are not the good guys, then you are saying the terrorist insurgents are the good guys? People who target civilians with suicide bombs, and have waged an unwinnable war for the purpose of establishing radical Islamic control over the people?
The Iraqi Patriots are those who are voting in elections, joining the government, joining the Iraqi security forces, and working to better their country. You are twisted to call those working for evil "patriots" – what is the matter with you?
Comparing the terrorists working against the Iraqi people and their government to American Patriots is just stupid. The terrorists are destroying Iraqi lives, their homes, their families, and their freedom. By the way, these terrorists are a tiny minority of the entire Iraqi population, and many of them are not even from Iraq.
The Iraqis are defending themselves against these evil people. You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting the enemy – and you owe the Iraqi people, as well as all the coalition forces, an apology for supporting evil and offering words of comfort to the enemy while degrading those fighting for freedom.
If I was an Iraqi, I too would be fighting any foreigner who came to MY country and tried to bully me around through the use of force. The Iraqis never invited the Americans . . . we just forced ourselves onto their lands. I think for some people like you, you don't really know what resistance is until you actually have to resist a foreign power. Resistence: "the action of opposing something that you disapprove or disagree with; the act of engaging in sabotage and secret operations against occupation forces and collaborators."
Your kind will never understand what resistance means; whether it's in Iraq, in Palestine, in Afghanistan, in Algeria, in Vietnam, in France, or anywhere else in the world. So, don't blame Iraqis for defending their lands . . . blame the Americans for making them have to defend their lands . . . and for destroying their lives, their dreams, their homes, their families, thier past, their present and their chances for a better future.
The only dirtbags in this situation are Cheney and Bush
If I was an Iraqi, I too would be fighting any foreigner who came to MY country and tried to bully me around through the use of force.
Dude, that's so 2003. You needed to start watching the news, years ago. It's way to late now. I suggest you just not talk about Iraq, since you obviously have no clue. I'm embarrassed for you.
I'm sure you feel soooooooooooooooo embarassed
I'd be more embarrassed if he said he's American, and still is 5 years out of date on what's going on in Iraq. That'd be negligence beyond belief… especially if he's a voter. How could a citizen of a country at war, have no idea what the status of the war is?
Hopefully, he's a citizen of some shithole country that doesn't matter, though.
no such thing
well, do you even know what constitutes the "status" of a war. the number of people dying? lame
That looks like a random collection of words, to me. Not only does your comment make no sense, there aren't even any complete sentences in there, and what little punctuation you bothered with is wrong. You sure you are a programmer? I've never met a programmer who had so much trouble with basic syntax, not to mention obvious problems with logical thought processes Maybe you should change your name to "programmer fired"?
If I was an Iraqi, I too would be fighting any foreigner who came to MY
The Iraqis are fighting the terrorists, many who do come from far away to help wage jihad for the purpose of establishing radical islamic control. Just research what these evil people did in Al-Qa'im .
Will, are you Muslim? Does that have anything to do with the fact that you cannot bring yourself to criticize the "jihadists" in Iraq and do not blame them for their killing, yet you criticize those fighting against them?
Were there any Jihadists before Saddam was toppled? The US created this monster directly as a result of this invasion, which was not only immoral, it was illegal.
Saddam was a nasty excuse for a human being, but it was never our right to go in there like we did.
Saddam suppressed all dissent using murderous tactics, torture, and fear. He brutalized his people to maintain control.
There is a much better way, and now democracy has come to Iraq.
By the way, the Iraqi people are winning against the insurgents – whether you like it or not the enemy is being defeated and the good guys are winning.
And that justifies an invasion that killed 1 million people how exactly? Should we invade Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia too? Maybe North Korea and China?
Democracy has come to Iraq but at what cost, and what right did we have to take it upon ourselves to give them it?
Maybe North Korea and China?
If we did, you can be sure that North Koreans and Chinese wouldn't set about slaughtering their own people just to de-legitimize us. I refuse to accept that my country is to blame for what the so-called resistance did in Iraq.
Well you can carry on believing that. Many in your own country and the vats majority of the outside world DO blame your country.
Then they are retarded. And who cares about the opinions of a retard? If you told them a bag of shit tastes pretty good after being microwaved for 30 seconds, they'd be eating shit salad for dinner.
Yes, everyone is wrong apart from the great Programmer Craig.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…….
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.