Posted on 03/27/2007 5:29:55 AM PDT by SJackson
I never thought we could see a new form of evil. After the gas chambers of the Holocaust, the tens of millions murdered in the Gulag, the forced starvation in the Ukraine, the hideous medical experiments on people by the Germans and the Japanese in World War II, the torture chambers in all police states, I had actually believed that no new forms of evil existed.
I was wrong.
Of course, for sheer cruelty, one cannot outdo the Nazis; no depiction of hell ever matched the reality of Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen. But while Islamists and Baathists in Iraq have not devised new forms of torture -- there probably are no new ways left -- they have devised a new form of evil: murdering, maiming and torturing as many innocents among their own people as possible.
I do not know of an analogous form of evil. When the Allies conquered Nazi Germany, disaffected Nazis did not go around murdering and cutting off the heads of fellow Germans in order to make the Allies leave. Nor did disaffected Japanese blow up Japanese students so as to make the American occupation of Japan untenable.
Here is the latest example of this new form of evil as reported by the Associated Press: "Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero, deputy director for regional operations on the Joint Staff, said . . . the vehicle used in the attack [on Iraqi civilians] was waved through a U.S. military checkpoint because two children were visible in the back seat. He said this was the first reported use of children in a car bombing in Baghdad. 'Children in the back seat lowered suspicion, (so) we let it move through, they parked the vehicle, the adults run out and detonate it with the children in the back,' Barbero told reporters in Washington."
These same "insurgents" routinely blow up children who line up to receive candy from U.S. troops. Likewise, college students are targeted for death, as are men lining up to apply for civilian jobs, men and women attending mosques, physicians in hospitals, and so on. The more innocent the Iraqi, the more likely he or she is to be targeted for murder.
I submit that there was no way to anticipate this. And no one did. This includes all those who predicted a civil war in Iraq between Shiites and Sunnis. I include myself among those who predicted savagery in Iraq. On a number of occasions prior to our invasion of Iraq, I recounted to my radio listeners this chilling story:
As a young man, in 1974, I was riding on a bus traveling from Beirut to Damascus. The man I sat next to was an English-speaking Iraqi whom I asked at one point in our conversation, "Can you describe your nation in a sentence?" "No problem," he immediately answered. "We Iraqis are the most barbaric people in the world."
I obviously never forgot that man's words, and therefore anticipated great cruelties in Iraq. But neither I nor anyone who predicted a civil war had so much as a premonition of this unprecedented mass murder of the men, women and children among one's own people as a military tactic to defeat an external enemy.
It is, therefore, unfair to blame the Bush administration for not anticipating such a determined "insurgency." Without the mass murder of fellow Iraqis, there would hardly be any "insurgency." The combination of suicide terrorists and a theology of death has created an unprecedented form of "resistance" to an occupier: "We will murder as many men, women and children as we can until you leave." Nor is this a matter of Sunnis murdering Shiites and vice versa: college students, women shopping at a Baghdad market and hospital workers all belong to both groups. Truck bombs cannot distinguish among tribes or religious affiliations.
If America had to fight an insurgency directed solely against us and coalition forces -- even including suicide bombers -- we would surely have succeeded. No one, right, left or center, could imagine a group of people so evil, so devoid of the most elementary and universal concepts of morality, that they would target their own people, especially the most vulnerable, for murder.
That is why we have not yet prevailed in Iraq. Even without all the mistakes made by the Bush administration -- and what political or military leadership has not made many errors in prosecuting a war? -- it could not have foreseen this new form of evil we are witnessing in Iraq.
That is why we have not won.
There are respectable arguments to be made against America's initially going into Iraq. But intellectually honest opponents of the war have to acknowledge that no one could anticipate an "insurgency" that included people leaving children in a car and then blowing them up.
Of course they do. American politics are their only hope for victory.
They did??
Democracy need to grow from within.
Presumably that's why Japan is still an Imperial Monarchy in which the Emperor is worshipped as a god.
They are not ready (well, maybe the Kurds are) for this great gift.
Women and children go to a marketplace and get blown up by some psycho zealot. To you, this proves that the Iraqis "are not ready" for democracy.
I have heard this argument over and over again and it never ceases to nauseate me. It's just so depressing that so many billions of people across the world can blame the victims of indiscriminate murder and not even realize that that's what they're doing.
The nation isn't really a nation at all but a construct tossed together by the Brits when they pulled out of the empire business.
Another argument I've only heard approximately 17 zillion times. I really don't understand what it's supposed to prove.
Chronologically, "Iraq" as constituted is an older nation-state than are "Taiwan", "the Czech Republic", and modern-day "Germany" and "Poland" as constituted. So what?
We should have: A) divided it into three nations.
In other words, we should have used force to impose three nations on them. Guess what? Many Iraqis would have not wanted this to happen. They would have resisted this partition. They would have formed up into violent gangs and performed violent acts, you know, what most people seem to call an "insurgency".
In other words, even if we had done this, we'd still be facing an "insurgency". Probably a worse one actually. Who would set the borders of the "three nations"? Who would defend them? Us?
Not a solution to anything, I'm afraid.
B) put one of Saddam's better generals in charge as tyrant (someone less bloody than Saddam)
So again, we install a government, and help defend it.
Hey! That's what we're doing. Only difference is that with your solution, the government has no democratic legitimacy whatsoever. What have you solved? Nothing.
C) replace the consititution of 1924 and put a king on the thrown.
Wait which is it? Dictator or king?
Whatever. You've solved nothing. You're complaining about an insurgency yet your "solutions" would have led to 10x as much insurgency.
I really don't give a damn. It's not my country, and the notion that a democratic form of government can flourish in a place as culturally dysfunctional as Iraq is silly.
I see. Well that explains our differences. You see, some of us do, because we'd like to ensure that whatever government emerges there doesn't cause problems for us. You know, like Hussein did.
the notion that a democratic form of government can flourish in a place as culturally dysfunctional as Iraq is silly.
Well, it's certainly silly if we give up on it and refuse to help it because we "don't give a damn" and we decide they're "not ready".
There's nothing wrong with that, but it has nothing to do with the form of government that exists there.
Well, it's certainly silly if we give up on it and refuse to help it because we "don't give a damn" and we decide they're "not ready".
If they were "ready" for a democratic form of government they wouldn't need a permanent foreign military presence inside their borders.
Iraq is no more "ready" to be a modern, stable society than New Orleans was before Hurrican Katrina.
Whether Iraq's future government causes problems for us has "nothing to do with" who governs there, how they govern, the mechanism of their empowerment, the mechanism (or lack thereof) of their removal? What an odd position.
Well like I said, I disagree. I think it has everything to do with those things.
If they were "ready" for a democratic form of government they wouldn't need a permanent foreign military presence inside their borders.
Weird circular logic here. I guess Japan and Germany weren't "ready" for a democratic government in 1945, therefore we should not have kept military forces there. Is that your position? If not, then on what basis do you think it was ok to keep U.S. forces in Japan & Germany post-1945?
Iraq is no more "ready" to be a modern, stable society than New Orleans was before Hurrican Katrina.
Meaning... what?
We should have ejected New Orleans from the United States, removed them from our military protection, because they "weren't ready to be a modern, stable society"?
I've lost track of what you're even talking about. So have you, methinks.
They attack innocent civilians because we have shown that we actually care about the welfare of Iraqi civilians.
If we did not care about the deaths of the innocent in Iraq, the barbarians would not gain any leverage in the act. And so they would move onto new and different targets.
That is what terrorists do. They exploit our weaknesses. And this is one of our weaknesses.
Having a military dictator in Pakistan -- a nuclear-armed Islamic country -- doesn't affect the way we deal with that country, does it? If anything, I would make the case that having a dictator makes it easier for the U.S. to deal with them.
Weird circular logic here. I guess Japan and Germany weren't "ready" for a democratic government in 1945, therefore we should not have kept military forces there. Is that your position? If not, then on what basis do you think it was ok to keep U.S. forces in Japan & Germany post-1945?
For one thing, Germany and Japan both had some form of democratic government before World War II. Germany, in fact, was not much different than any of the other western European "democracies" at the time.
Secondly, the United States pummeled the crap out of both of these countries during the war -- and in the case of Japan, we basically eradicated their existing culture. If the U.S. wanted to make Ronald McDonald the head of state in Japan in 1945, they were in no position to do anything about it.
This is one thing we have absolutely not done in Iraq (at least not openly) -- and in fact, we've allowed the new Iraqi government to adopt a constitution in which one of the roots of their dysfunctional culture (Islam) is enshrined as the official state religion.
We should have ejected New Orleans from the United States, removed them from our military protection, because they "weren't ready to be a modern, stable society"?
No. But most Americans -- if they're honest with you -- will tell you that they had no more concern for the people of New Orleans in 2005 than they had for the people of Port au Prince, Haiti in the 1990s. They sure as hell would never have accepted the notion that the Federal government should piss away 3,000+ lives and several hundred billion dollars to rebuild the place.
Was Dennis asleep on 9/11? Some of these jihadi psychos would pack their entire family in a bus if they thought they would get better results when the bomb went off.
At this point I don't believe we are going to stop Iran - I hope so though...
I would dispute that our relations are hunky-dory with Pakistan or that they have done nothing to cause us problems. One of the things they did that caused us problems: Taliban. Taliban harbored Al Qaeda. You know what Al Qaeda did.
But even if you were right, our supposedly easy time with Pakistan is only possible because (supposedly) Musharraf is so US-friendly. This is not always so easy to arrange in a military dictator of some nation-state. Particularly when you take the position that you "don't care" and consider it "none of our business" what sort of government that nation-state has. Which is, of course, your position on Iraq.
You are also being very self-contradictory in holding Musharraf up as an example. It is not the case at all that we have taken a "don't care" position (the position you favor re: Iraq) when it comes to who governs Pakistan. On the contrary, we have taken great pains to prop up Musharraf. If we took a "don't care" position re: Pakistan we would not have Musharraf in there to be so (supposedly) friendly to us!
In other words, if we actually took your Iraq advice and applied it to Pakistan, you wouldn't have this Pakistan example you're pointing to as (supposely) supporting your Iraq advice. This calls into question whether even you take your Iraq position seriously.
For one thing, Germany and Japan both had some form of democratic government before World War II.
Well, by the same token then, Iraq, likewise, had "some form of" democratic government before 2003. I don't know what you think this point means. I think it means not very much either way.
Germany, in fact, was not much different than any of the other western European "democracies" at the time.
???
Sorry, call me crazy but I reckon that Germany 1933-1945 (=the period before WW2) was quite a bit different from most of the European democracies at the time.
Secondly, the United States pummeled the crap out of both of these countries during the war [...] This is one thing we have absolutely not done in Iraq
That's true. This proves what? That we should pummel the crap out of them now?
Maybe it proves that. Though all things considered, I don't favor doing so.
One thing it certainly does not prove, however, is that we must pull out. That does not follow at all. If you consider this observation to be part of a good logical argument for pulling out, you are simply erroneous. "We didn't pummel Iraq like we did Japan therefore we should pull out of Iraq now" is, at best, a non sequitur.
[New Orleans] They sure as hell would never have accepted the notion that the Federal government should piss away 3,000+ lives and several hundred billion dollars to rebuild the place.
The record shows that virtually all commentary criticized our government for "not doing enough" re: New Orleans. So I don't know what you base this opinion on. The fact is that we probably did and will piss away, if not hundreds of billions, at least something on the order of a billion dollars to clean up the aftermath of Katrina. And it still won't be "enough" for some people.
How this is supposed to apply to Iraq is completely unclear. You are painting Iraq as a charity issue. But I already stated to you that there is a good reason for our endeavor in Iraq which has nothing whatsoever to do with charity, or with how much we "care" about them, namely that we are trying to arrange a government there which does not cause us problems in the future. So to keep bringing up New Orleans, and whether we "care" about them, or Iraqis, is an apples/oranges comparison. The only question is whether you are being deliberately obtuse about my already-stated position - which, again, has nothing to do with charity or "caring" and everything to do with cold geopolitical calculation.
Sometimes I get the impression that what bothers you, and those with positions similar to yours, is that the endeavor in Iraq seems like charity, like evidence of "caring" for Iraqis, and you just can't stand that. So even if we have perfectly good selfish, non-charity reasons for being in Iraq, you still can't stomach the notion of doing something geopolitically which could be interpreted as unselfish. This is sort of the mirror-image of the extreme lefty point of view that geopolitical actions are only ok if there is no conceivable national interest whatsoever involved (i.e. Kosovo); your view seems to be the contrary, geopolitical actions are only ok if there are no conceivable unselfish motivations involved.
If that's where you're coming from, I'm not sure how to help you. I suppose you're right that it is possible to interpret what we're doing in Iraq as something unselfish, and thus, you will be bothered by it. Suffice it to say that we disagree that we should not take any actions that someone somewhere could perceive as unselfish.
The security forces in Iraq are in the process of taking over the task of defending the Iraqi people.
Read the accounts of the recent operations. Notice the increase, now up to 350,000 security forces.
I think there's a good chance of success, that they will completely defend themselves.
So I guess all people in Iraq are apt to blow up their kids, right?
What? You can't be serious.
Sad to say, but you have a valid point. We rightly condemn the WWII era Germans for doing nothing to stop Hitler's holocaust which killed 6 million innocent men, women, and children. But now we condone America's own holocaust which has to date slaughtered 8 times more innocent unborn children than the innocents of all ages who were slaughtered by Hitler's fiendish killers.
I've never suggested here that the U.S. has maintained ideal relations with Pakistan. One thing that you cannot dispute, however, is that we don't have dozens of U.S. military personnel killed and maimed every month by IEDs in Islamabad.
In fact, Musharraf is such a compliant "partner" with the U.S. because the U.S. has credibly threatened to do one thing in Pakistan that it has not threatened to do in Iraq -- i.e., lay waste to large swaths of the country and make them uninhabitable for several generations.
Pakistan is a perfect example of a country that can be treated as an enemy -- or can be treated as a friend -- because the government stands on its own and we don't have these silly, delusional ideas about "promoting democracy" there.
Sorry, call me crazy but I reckon that Germany 1933-1945 (=the period before WW2) was quite a bit different from most of the European democracies at the time.
I will call you "crazy" on this one. If you do some research on that era in Europe, you'll find that much of western Europe was engaged in some serious internal political turmoil -- primarily between two different forms of socialism (nationalism vs. international communism). Spain and France were two perfect examples of this. In fact, one of the biggest myths of that era was that the "resistance movement" in France was the dominant political force. The reality was that the Vichy government (which generally supported Germany) was the legitimate government of France at the time. And Leon Blum, the Marxist who had served as the prime minister in the late 1930s, spent most of the war in prison (first in France, then in Germany).
One thing it certainly does not prove, however, is that we must pull out. That does not follow at all. If you consider this observation to be part of a good logical argument for pulling out, you are simply erroneous. "We didn't pummel Iraq like we did Japan therefore we should pull out of Iraq now" is, at best, a non sequitur.
You can make this case all you want -- and it's a valid argument. But the single best argument for withdrawing U.S. troops is that they never should have been sent there in the first place. I don't expect anyone to listen to that logic, though -- any more than they listened to it the first time around.
The record shows that virtually all commentary criticized our government for "not doing enough" re: New Orleans. So I don't know what you base this opinion on.
I don't give a damn what "virtually all commentary" has said about anything on this issue -- especially when nothing the U.S. government did in New Orleans would have been "enough" for these people. And that is exactly why it represents such a stark parallel to Iraq. Dysfunctional cultures by their very nature cannot stand on their own, and yet they completely resent any attempts by outsiders to "fix" their situation.
Sometimes I get the impression that what bothers you, and those with positions similar to yours, is that the endeavor in Iraq seems like charity, like evidence of "caring" for Iraqis, and you just can't stand that. So even if we have perfectly good selfish, non-charity reasons for being in Iraq, you still can't stomach the notion of doing something geopolitically which could be interpreted as unselfish. This is sort of the mirror-image of the extreme lefty point of view that geopolitical actions are only ok if there is no conceivable national interest whatsoever involved (i.e. Kosovo); your view seems to be the contrary, geopolitical actions are only ok if there are no conceivable unselfish motivations involved.
Actually, my biggest problem with the U.S. involvement in Iraq is that there has never been a coherent policy at all -- or at least one that made any sense.
Iraq isn't unique in that regard (I've spent many a post here on FR providing similar critiques of other U.S. government policies -- both foreign and domestic), but it's the one issue where the cost in human lives and taxpayer dollars is head and shoulders above all the others.
See
WHAT PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ISLAM
http://www.veoh.com/videos/v235662e4SSDqkr
All is said.
It is not a surprise the Kurds made it out and not the Shia.
Since its creation, islam has lauched jihad, civil war and destruction every where.
That's true. Instead they installed and supported the Taliban, which harbored the organization that killed some 3000 Americans (plus hundreds more we've lost in the fight to oust them). They set up the A.Q. Khan nuclear network, which has led to who knows how much proliferation. They fund terrorism. They nurture extremism. They won't apprehend Osama bin Laden (believed to be hiding in Pakistan) and they won't let us do so either. Yeah, our cozy relationship w/Musharraf is working out just dandy for us. Pakistan has caused us no problems at all. Such a shining example to be emulated elsewhere!
In fact, Musharraf is such a compliant "partner" with the U.S. because the U.S. has credibly threatened to do one thing in Pakistan that it has not threatened to do in Iraq -- i.e., lay waste to large swaths of the country and make them uninhabitable for several generations.
We have? And yet, somehow, we still can't go into their country (into Waziristan or the "tribal areas") to seek and apprehend the man responsible for an act of war against us, nor will they do so either. In fact if we did it they'd get mad at us, undoubtedly. What a great "partner" we have! Yes, he's so "compliant"!
Pakistan is a perfect example of a country that can be treated as an enemy -- or can be treated as a friend -- because the government stands on its own and we don't have these silly, delusional ideas about "promoting democracy" there.
But the government doesn't "stand on its own", by all accounts Musharraf's continued survival depends on his relationship with the U.S. And we are not so "free" to treat them as an enemy. If we were, we could enter country and try to get OBL! But we don't do that (at least openly or with significant force). Why? "Because that might lead to a coup against Musharraf".
In other words, our cozy relationship with Musharraf binds our hands when it comes to how we can treat Pakistan. By any measure, they are either harboring or failing to deliver OBL - they either harbor our enemy, or do not control their territory enough to deliver us our enemy. This has gone on for FIVE YEARS. And we do NOTHING. Why, because we are "free to act" with regard to Pakistan? Just the opposite! We are not "free" to do anything which someone can argue might threaten Musharraf's power, because "Musharraf is our friend and if he loses power the nukes might fall into the wrong hands". This doctrine more or less makes us Musharraf's slave; we are beholden to do whatever is perceived necessary to keep Musharraf in power, and nothing which is perceived to threaten his hold on power.
Very, very strange example you've put forth of a government that "stands on its own" and against which we are "free" to treat how we need to.
And again, one thing it's completely not an example of is a country for which we take no position whom should govern it, because we "don't care" (which is what you suggest we do re: Iraq). As I've explained, we take a very strong position re: whom should govern Pakistan, and this dictates much of our relations with them.
[Sorry, call me crazy but I reckon that Germany 1933-1945 (=the period before WW2) was quite a bit different from most of the European democracies at the time.] I will call you "crazy" on this one. If you do some research on that era in Europe, you'll find that much of western Europe was engaged in some serious internal political turmoil
Turmoil, perhaps. Suspended their constitution and declared someone with anti-semitic, racial-superiority theories their Supreme Chancellor, not so much. No, sorry, Spain's civil war notwithstanding, this sort of thing was simply not true of "most" European countries.
Anyway, why were we talking about this? Oh right, you are trying to show that Germany pre-1945 is substantially different from Iraq pre-2003 in a way that made Germany more susceptible to democracy, therefore it was ok to keep troops in Germany even though it's not in Iraq. Yup, sure, Germany from 1933-1945 was really a shining example of a country that was just itchin' for democracy.
You really must be joking here. Either that or you've not thought through your position.
But the single best argument for withdrawing U.S. troops is that they never should have been sent there in the first place.
Actually that's not an argument for withdrawing troops at all. It could be true that they shouldn't have been sent there in the first place, but at the same time, that we should keep them there. Or vice versa. They are two separate questions. I know many people consider them the same exact question; I chalk this up to lazy thinking.
[The record shows that virtually all commentary criticized our government for "not doing enough" re: New Orleans. So I don't know what you base this opinion on.] I don't give a damn what "virtually all commentary" has said about anything on this issue
I don't care if you don't give a damn. You were making an assertion about public opinion re: Katrina/New Orleans (that no Americans care about New Orleanians, or something). Well, commentary - in other words, what people are saying - is a tangible indication of the nature of that public opinion. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with that commentary, the point is if you say "the people believe X" yet all commentary suggests that the people believe Y, there is probably something wrong with your assertion that the people believe X.
nothing the U.S. government did in New Orleans would have been "enough" for these people.
Well, exactly! Which completely belies your earlier assertion that Americans didn't care about New Orleanians and didn't want to spend any money on them. It's precisely the opposite.
Actually, my biggest problem with the U.S. involvement in Iraq is that there has never been a coherent policy at all -- or at least one that made any sense.
The policy is to support the nascent government against "insurgents" and others seeking to undermine civil society or prevent it from forming. Essentially it's a reconstruction; we keep a military presence at the request of their government and we perform a safeguard role until either we decide that the government is ready to stand, or they ask us to leave. How exactly doesn't this "make sense"?
You may disagree with the policy (and I can speculate about why), but that doesn't mean the policy "doesn't make sense", it just means you disagree with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.