The 75th Exploitation Task Force, as the group is formally known, has been described from the start as the principal component of the U.S. plan to discover and display forbidden Iraqi weapons. The group's departure, expected next month, marks a milestone in frustration for a major declared objective of the war.
The task force is being shuttered next month, and the number of fruitless missions paints a damning indictment. CENTCOM began the war, the story says, with 19 top weapons sites. Only two remain to be searched, with nothing coming up in the first 17. Another list had 68 top "non-WMD" sites that might offer clues to the locations of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons programs. Forty-five have been dead ends. Despite the Bush administration's assertions that the inspections have barely begun and -- irony alert! -- must be given time, Task Force 75's inspection of the high-priority targets has been marked by poor intelligence on the part of Washington or poor security that led to sites being looted or burned. This means that any materials that might have been used to produce WMD are now missing, which is what this was was allegedly fought for. "Am I convinced that what we did in this fight was viable? I tell you from the bottom of my heart: We stopped Saddam Hussein in his WMD programs," said Army Col. Richard McPhee, according to the Post. "Do I know where they are? I wish I did ... but we will find them. Or not. I don't know. I'm being honest here." But the key parts of this article are the ones that show how poorly the retroactive search for a casus belli is going.
"We came to bear country, we came loaded for bear and we found out the bear wasn't here," said a Defense Intelligence Agency officer here who asked not to be identified by name. "The indications and warnings were there. The assessments were solid." "Okay, that paradigm didn't exist," he added. "The question before was, where are Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons? What is the question now? That is what we are trying to sort out." One thing analysts must reconsider, he said, is: "What was the nature of the threat?"
The suspicion that the American people -- and the United Nations -- were not simply misled but actively lied to by Team Bush to gain support for this war leads to a bit of a queasy feeling. At least it should. Look, I'm not denying that good came of this and that the Iraqi people likely will eventually be better off, but I do have to ask some questions to the people now crowing that what the United States did was right:
- Was the good that came out of this worth the problems and costs now facing the United States?
- Was it worth it to saddle the United States taxpayer with a multi-billion dollar commitment to Iraq when the nation's deficits are climbing ever higher and the economy is as stagnant a Florida swamp?
- Was it worth the damage to international order and alliances that has been done?
- Why did the United States start a war armed with a quiver full of lies?
- Is this the kind of world you want to live in?
No, it’s not the kind of world I want to live. We can’t go back and replay it. Now we have to make something out of the mess. That includes lots and lots of questions, holding fast until the truth is layed bare, and holding those responsible accountable…
Was the good that came out of this worth the problems and costs now facing the United States?
— What was the good part again? Anyway, no it was not worth it.
Was it worth it to saddle the United States taxpayer with a multi-billion dollar commitment to Iraq when the nation’s deficits are climbing ever higher and the economy is as stagnant a Florida swamp?
— No. Ditto for Louisiana swamps.
Was it worth the damage to international order and alliances that has been done?
— No. You’re kidding right?
Why did the United States start a war armed with a quiver full of lies?
— Good question. Needs to be asked of the appropriate defendants in a court of law. Of course, you will have to out-gun the U.S. military to collar these guys.
Is this the kind of world you want to live in?
No. I like the other kind.
Ah, “great minds…”!
I wrote this and posted it a few places last month.
Scene: Neighborhood.
Guy on the corner obviously abuses his wife, neglects his kids, throws garbage in the neighbor’s yard. Years of good neighbors asking him to grow up, get counseling, have no effect.
Then, years of calling the cops, and the cops doing what they can, which helps, but is never enough to really solve it.
The big guy in the fancy house at the end of the block has been threatening to do something about it himself.
Finally “Big Guy” gets a baseball bat, and despite almost all of the neighbors telling him not to, he enters the jerk’s yard. The jerk’s oldest son, who does not like his Dad at all, still confronts the Big Guy. He gets shoved aside, and badly injured.
Big Guy breaks in the door, and bashes around in the house, trying to be as frightening as possible. Nice stuff gets broken. The jerk splits out the back door.
Big Guy tells the wife as he leaves; “now, you can decide for yourself how to live your life.”
Questions:
1) Should the neighbors cheer? How should the wife react?
2) How are disputes solved in this neighborhood after this? Legally?
3)Does the Big Guy have what it takes to wave the bat fairly and consistently, now that he has supplanted the cops?
4) How many neighbors go to the Big Guy’s barbeque after this, or do him mutual favors? If so, out of honest friendship, or just to curry favor with power?
5) What happens when the oldest son of the jerk grows up? Does it matter who his role model is?
Look, sometimes all you can do is contain a jerk, and let the cops deal with the worst transgressions. Make friends with his family and do them favors, help them hang in there, or support them if they kick the jerk out and get a restraining order.
But taking the law into your own hands and administering “justice” yourself is a bad idea.
Bad precedent, bad for neighborhood friendships, bad example for kids.
And this is without the factor of there being something of value at the jerk’s house that the Big Guy just happens to really covet. And the fact that the Big Guy used to be buddies with the jerk, and introduced jerk to his eventual wife.
Analogies fail at some point, for example: in looking at Iraq today, is the glass half full, or half empty?
Does your answer change if the liquid in the glass is innocent’s blood?
Posted by Randal at April 10, 2003 04:29 PM
That’s pretty funny… I had no inkling of Randal’s post, tho.
I think the more important question might be: just because we have the means to, should we be the judge and the executioner? And if it’s truly for an altruistic cause, then why the lies?…from fabricated documents, “evidence,” and staged photo ops. Does our might give us the moralistic edge to make decisions for everyone else? The obvious danger in thinking that God has appointed you to be the enforcer of God’s will is that you become God. This is true whether you believe in God or not.
And in a perfect world, everyone would welcome US as the good guys, however, our government has proven itself untrustworthy and of bad judgment in the past and the present. Has there been a poll taken yet to determine how many people think the US capable of planting the sought after evidence?
The truth in the universe: for every action, there is a reaction.
Humans need to evolve beyond greed and inhumanity to each other.
Until then, the rest of the stupidity will continue.
That’s the bottom line as I see it.
Great questions, and the analogy is right on point. In a court of law (in the real world, not Dubya’s cloistered corner of it) the only facts one is allowed to consider are those which are proven in court. All parties must have their case prepared before trial begins. Allegations not proven are not fact, and are not allowed to come under consideration. No amount of conjecture or innuendo can turn allegation into fact without solid proof: thus, the WMD do not exist. The prosecutor is not allowed to hang the accused while the DA’s deputies go out scrambling around to find more evidence.
Unless the judge has been outrageously paid off (gasp - when would that ever happen?!) the case will be decided on fact alone, and upon the evidence presented at trial. Of course, in the case of a jury trial, there is the unpredictability of the jury, and jury swaying (even tampering) is done on many levels - which is what Bush was counting on in The Case of the Self-Righteous Rich Guy.
I’m pretty sure even Perry Mason with his rabbit-out-of-hat-tricks would not try to defend this case.
Watch out for the “moral equivalency” trap here, Chris. The whole war venture has the Vietnam paradigm all over it: “We had to destroy it to save it”. Sure, the hated Saddam Hussein is gone, but, ask yourself how many lives have and will perish - combatants, civilians…men, women, and especially children - in order for one evil to be extirpated. After all, Saddam’s demise was merely “collateral damage”, the driving imperative here was for the Bush neocon cabal to select a country governed by a particulary odious individual - but one that couldn’t inflict but minimal damage upon an invading force - and UNILATERALLY DEPOSE THE EXISTING REGIME…full stop. Imperial adventurism, no more, no less.
tempus omnia revelat
Answers:
No. We emerge with a substantial deficit in moral capital.
No. We emerge with a substantial deficit.
No. We emerge with a substantial deficit in political and diplomatic capital.
Because this administration has an agenda http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html to destroy cooperation and commence coercion as our foreign policy And because War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
No. At some point we will have to come out from behind our keyboards. We’ll have to stop bloggin’ and start floggin’, figuratively speaking of course. We have to take back our government. How? “Reply hazy. Ask again later.”
Its an interesting area that the US gov’t wants to go to. Everyday this “liberation” turns more and more into an atempt to create “America 2”. Im all for freedom and want not. But is the US the best to do this? Seems to me that heavy handed gov’t with regards to their own people, and their “do as we say or we want play with you attitude” towards its neighbours (take Canada and the proposed Decrim laws) that things are going to go down hill and fast for the US Gov’t, the American People, and the economy. Its already happend. The US dollar is losing ground on the Euro still. Its lost around 5 cents on the candian dollar this year alone. 3 in the last month.
My answers are no, no, no, because our leadership is corrupt and many folks are willingly misled, and no, but I feel powerless to stop our supposedly democratic government from acting as it pleases.
I’d add a couple of other questions, too:
Compared to Hussein’s, how many governments in the world in 2003 do you consider to be more dangerous and deadlier to its own citizens? Its neighbors? The U.S.?
Was it worth the death of more innocents than were killed on 9/11?
Chris, I got knocked offline a bit but catching up, I remain impressed with your efforts, particularly with this and your 4/29 post. Kudos to you for risking life and limb, putting out a quality news stream and asking the right questions.
Most definately not the world I wish to live in. The global community needs to become aware of the lies and deceipt undertaken by the US administration to get what they wanted….whatever that was precisely. The Bush Camarilla should be, must be held to account. The global community cannot be held responsible for the rebuilding, nor for the state of what Iraq is to become. If it is to be an Islamic state, then so be it. The people will choose and they must choose, free of influence from anyone, US administration most importantly.
This illegal war, prosecuted with total and complete disregard for the opinions and sentiment expressed by representatives of the global community and millions of individuals across the globe, will live forever as an example of what humanity must NOT allow itself to become.
Your politicians think so.
No, the politicians are therefore very eager to get Iraq to pay for the whole deal themselves, but they are not going to say so publicly. On the other hand the coporations who payed for the politicians to go to war are now happy to reap multi-million contracts on rebuilding Iraq. The US taxpayer and his economy is an innocent bystander in this game.
The positive thing that has come out of this is that we in europe have finaly gotten our eyes up and are becoming more anti-US. US has gone from admired throughout the world to hated. We will see whos economy that brakes first.
To ensure the steady stream of cheap oil to the US. Also see 2.
We live in it and are bugs to the big multi-milionare bosses and big politicians. Live with it.
HERE HERE! I’ve been using a similar analogy for the last few months, but of course most people don’t care about our country operating under an enormous double standard.
To all who agree with Christopher: Who is the current “rightful” leader of the world if not the U.S.? Who has the power and vision to make any positive changes in world events? Is the monetary cost of doing something really a good argument for doing nothing? Do you care more for deficits than the welfare of peoples?
Please lay out your vision, post-9-11, for what must be done to stop the world’s most vexing problems, i.e. repressive dictatorships, the Middle East, and terrorism. Inaction and trust in the UN has not been successful, in my view. What are your solutions to these problems?
As for the America-haters here and abroad, you don’t have America to blame for Nazism, Communism and Fascism- ideas that have laid waste to economies, alliances, international order, freedom and peoples’ lives in a terrible way that we still pay for today.
Thanks!
——Brian
Absolutely excellent article !
“Who is the current “rightful” leader of the world if not the U.S.?”
does this world deserve a ‘leader’? germany one day had one .. ‘think you know how this story ended, and today no german wants another-one…
“Who has the power and vision to make any positive changes in world events?”
the US? who shows the whole world that their vision is ‘america first’ and nothing else? who’s universalism is near to zero, but not it’s ignorance to the wishes/hopes/thoughts of nearly the rest of the world?
and positive changes?
what to you think the arabs and muslims think about the US policy of ‘positive changes’ in the moment?
how does europe (old AND new) think about the destruction of NATO and UNO?
can a self-declared ‘leader’ have the whole world against him?
“Is the monetary cost of doing something really a good argument for doing nothing?”
surly not in general. but can the citizens of the US pay these bills in these days?
andwhich ‘welfare’ should be done first, the one at home where medical care, working time, insurence in case of unemployment is badly in compliance with the one in ‘old europe’, or the one in foreign countries with unknown results?
“Inaction and trust in the UN has not been successful, in my view. What are your solutions to these problems?”
inaction never solves problem, and that’s not what’s the alternative to going it alone against all others.
there is another way: WITH your allys, WITH UN, WITH the whole world, not against it.
the world came to your side after 9-11, they offered what they could do, to help the US, and to solve the worldwide problems - INCLUDING terrorism, repressive dictatorships, the Middle East, proliferation of WMD’s AND environemtal and development problems throughout the whole world.
but instead of going this way the US offended all their allys by rejecting all this, stopping to agree on the non-proliferation agreement in biological wapons, stopping to agree to international-court, stopping to agree to kyoto, stopping to agree to future UN anti-terrorism effords - and telling everybody going it alone would be better.
is it? can problems like proliferation of wmd’s solved unilaterily? can they be solved militarily? ARE they solved after this iraq war, or is there a bigger problem with proliferation of nuclear wapons then ever before in history? just the last question has to be answered yes, and thats what makes me muse on the US unilaterlism.
beeing pragmatic, not ideologic, getting the whole world into the boat - this would have solved the problems more likely than the situation we have today. not even the NATO pulls together anymore.
are UN peacekeeping a useful solution to challange a regime change like in afghanistan? NO, they are not.
but is a NATO command, legalized by UNSC resolution a useful solution? YES, it is. you have the whole western world directly behind you, you are aided by the whole world - and you reach your goals.
“you don’t have America to blame”
america is not to blame for the wrong doings of others - but it is to WARN if it is going to do own mistakes. and thats what germans and french wanted to do, and thats what you never understood.
neither french nor germany was or is your enemy at ANY time: they are deep friends.
inside of NONE german i know there are any hatrets against the US - but there is anger, because of unilateralism, of outsmarting, of ignorance, of badly simplifications, of europhob utterances.
THAT’s why europe is offended, it’s not anti-americanism, it’s not any hatrets.
the atlantic was never smaller than in the days and weeks after 9-11, but by now it seems it was never larger than in these days and thats NOT what germans had in mind when our chancellor spoke about ‘infinite solidarity’ to the US and their fight against GLOBAL problems after 9-11 - but it turned out that the US didn’t want to fight GLOBAL problems with a GLOBAL perspective and GLOBAL partners but instead doing it alone, and not thinking of problems/intrests/suggestions other countrys had - in general and in individual case.
THAT’s what i feel, when i read about ‘american leadership’ - but there’s another perspective, the one that tell’s me that the US in fact is not capable to do this alone if it wants to or not.
economically many parts of the world are stronger in these days than the US is, politically many parts of the world, especially in europe, are more credible and trustet in spreading and developing democracy around the world. so the US lacks of soft-power wich was shown impressively in the debate of the UNSC pre-iraq-war. even countries like ‘ghana’, ‘chile’, ‘angola’ had the cougare to say ‘no’ to the US.
so economically the US has problems, at home and ind world-wide trade relationships. and in case of credibility the only thing the US has is a lack of it. throughout the world.
can the US do this job really alone? or will they stumble on half way and leave behind a world in flames?
The heart of the question is “How does a decent person contend with evil?” Turn the other cheek? Suit up full armor and battle it to the death? Ignore it? When people discuss the Iraq situation you can find advocates of all three. If you believe, as I do, that we must confront evil, how do you do it without becoming part of the evil yourself?
My grandmother used to say “Honey, everybody has to kill their own snakes.” That was her rule for confronting evil. When evil crosses your path confront it. But don’t try to save other people from their own responsibility to do the same.
Since September 11 I’ve had a very tough time figuring out where the snakes are that I have to kill. I keep trying, but I am truly conflicted about this. I never supported the war and I never opposed it either. Not because I don’t care, but because I cannot figure it out.
W. seems to have it all figured out. The world is his garden and he’s going to clear the snakes starting with the ones nesting under the ripe tomatoes.
About W. I am not conflicted. I think he’s the best president the Supreme Court ever picked for us. Maybe that’s where the problem definition should begin. How many people are really paying attention?
Thanks for the european perspective, Maxim. A few of your points:
—- Does this world deserve a ?leader??
I believe that with the fall of the Soviet Union, most anyone would agree that the U.S. was almost instantaneously left as the sole superpower of the world. It wasn’t by choice, just by circumstance. As part of that circumstance, our decisions as a country now have more influence that those of say, Sweden. I think that the only way we could be perceived as not being a bully at this point would be to subjugate more of our interests to those of other countries- a policy of appeasement. I don’t see France pursuing a policy of subjugating their interests to those of other countries, and I don’t hear people complaining that they are bullies. The reason is that their decisions carry far less weight than ours.
—- the US? who shows the whole world that their vision is ?america first? and nothing else?
Please give examples of how America’s decisions have made the world a worse place. Also, please give examples of countries that make decisions that are not based on their own self-interest. I haven’t seen countries ceding land to their neighbors, for instance, because their neighbors would be better off with more land. Again, just because our decisions are more visible, doesn’t make them any more self-interested than the decisions of Ghana.
—- you have the whole western world directly behind you, you are aided by the whole world - and you reach your goals.
Again, can we make no move unless the entire world agrees? “I say no action, sirs, until Panama is on board!”
—— and thats what germans and french wanted to do, and thats what you never understood.
Please explain how the French and German positions were simply warning America that it was making a big mistake, and not self-interested. The facts would make it appear otherwise. To hold up France and Germany as noble, enlightened, disinterested parties who are just trying to warn a friend that they’ve gone off the deep end just won’t fly.
—— the atlantic was never smaller than in the days and weeks after 9-11
For Americans like myself, the events of Sept. 11th and what has happened since are one continuum. There is no difference between Sept. 12, 2001 and today in terms of where my head is at. The problems and challenges we face were laid out plain as day, and we are working to confront those things and bring them under control to ensure our safety. It’s understandable that when the U.S. was attacked, our traditional allies and even semi-enemies would rally behind us. Now many of those same people do not like or understand our more long-term reaction. They want us to calm down and get back to business as usual. Unfortunately, business as usual will not return anytime soon, if at all. Business as usual led to 9-11, frankly, and must be changed. As an American I feel the implications of 9-11 every day, and discuss the ramifications every day. WE were attacked, and WE are in charge of taking care of ourselves. The UN, for instance, is not. It is fine to disagree with our methods, but please do not try to minimize our motivations. Our reasons come from both the head and the heart, and we are extremely motivated to do what needs to be done.
—— the one that tell’s me that the US in fact is not capable to do this alone if it wants to or not.
The continuing argument for inaction. “Don’t even try it- you’ll just fail.” Perhaps we are on a foolhardy mission of self destruction. Perhaps we are doing the world and ourselves a great disservice, and will be viewed as fools. Perhaps that through hoping for more and better, we are squandering what we have now and good enough. If this is the case, then time and history will judge. However, history will not find us sitting on our hands, hoping against hope, and cowering before a challenge.
Thanks again for the discussion. I hope that by trading perspectives we can come to a better understanding!
——-Brian
— It wasn’t by choice, just by circumstance.
you are absolute right with this - and it is a part of the problem.
to me it seemed you never really agreed to this fact. if you read brzezinski you can see what he has planned for US hegemony, and which part never became reality.
so america came in the situation of beeing neither, empire nor just one equal member of 192 countries in the world.
so if it want to go it alone in these days, as it seems to me the neocons would like, it faces serious problems - because it is NOT empire.
— Please give examples of how America’s decisions have made the world a worse place.
if anybody would say the US is an empire - then it is the best we ever had in history, and i think nearly everyone [except of right-wing islamists] is aware of this.
but just because it is the best it doesn’t mean it does not make mistakes.
if you would ask me the upper question i woul tell you a few thinks wich, i think, went wrong in history [think it would begin with korea, vietnam going on to the role of the US in the Iraq-Iran war in the eighties and the sanctions-policy in newer iraqi history], but this is not the fact that matters - the fact that really matters is how THE WORLD LOOKS at the US, and i think you would agree if i say the image of the US throughout the world is damaged, and esecially in the muslim-world the US lacks credibility in peace and democratization efforts.
and THATS what could be the future problem. it is not so much about the ‘real’ role the US has played in history and still plays, but it is much more about their image throughout the world.
i know you are far from being ‘evil’ - but in the muslim-world and in last-developing-countries many think different here…
— Also, please give examples of countries that make decisions that are not based on their own self-interest.
that’s easy:
France
Germany
Belgium
Netherlands
Italia
Spain
…
the whole EU is based on this - you give souverenity, and get stability. you agree on things against your own intrests to profit from ‘the whole thing’. so the europeans have to stop thinking of short self-intrests, but begin to see the big picture and do things against their own intrest to achieve other, in the long term, more importent things - and they did, and they did sucessfully. they even PAY MONEY, billions of euro to other EU countries [germany, france and UK are the one who spend more then they get] to achieve long-term goals.
and THATS what also should become US policy - not exectly the way the EU is working, but the principle of sharing souverenity and intrests to achieve bigger and more important goals.
fighting terrorism is done the best, and THE ONLY POSSIBLE way in a big coalition, where different coutrys work together, and give up a part of their own souverenity and a part of their own intrests to get bigger results, to get the ONE AIM done. so asian states have to stop their quarrel about whaling to get the much more importent aim, the terrorism done. and the US should have given up some of their hardcore positions to achieve the ‘ONE AIM’ TOGETHER with all the others.
not the rest of the world but america lacked willing in these questions.
they never where willing to give up a part of it’s souverenity to work together with others, one example is the rejection of the international-justice court efforts. and they never where willing to give up a few of their own intrests to achieve other ones, more importent ones which only can be achieved in a ‘real’ coalition, one example is the rejection of the kyoto agreement on climate.
even in the question of WMD’s they where not willing to work together with the world, to form a real coalition, where everybody GIVES and GETS, one example was the rejection of the biological-warfare agreement and the rejection of the ABM agreement.
this is not what policy should be if long-term thinking, building ONE frontier against ONE target to reach ONE aim, is necessary.
— Again, just because our decisions are more visible, doesn’t make them any more self-interested than the decisions of Ghana.
i am not familiar with the policy of ghana, but if you change ghana in ‘germany’, ‘france’, ‘italy’ then you’re wrong. because US decisions in very many cases WHERE and ARE more self-interested, and (which seems to me, living in a land that DEPENDS on american power, much more frightning) only short-term thinking. the war in afghanistan is one example the taliban ran away where fast - but thats whats the problem like, the RAN AWAY and now are coming back - the same time the last US soldiers are flying out of the country. and their only luck was the wide coalition that agreed to this war, because there is a UN peacekeeping troop (under GERMAN COMMAND, please, please BEAR IN MIND what we are doing FOR YOU!) who will try to solve the upcoming problems - but it doesn’t seem like there will be such a troop in iraq…
i think what american policy has to get in these days is the fact that in most times not the easiest, not the fastest way are the best. to reach aims which reaching depends on many players forces every player who wants to reach the aim to make concessions about souverenity and intrests.
i don’t think in iraq THE OIL was your goal - but don’t you think more of the world would think like me, when you would stop the efforts to sell the iraqi oil to halliburton? and don’t you think it would be to your favor around the world if more people would think of the US as a fair and honest country?
— Again, can we make no move unless the entire world agrees?
it’s not a question of ‘is panama on board?’ but it IS a question of ‘are youre deepest allys on board?’. and in case of iraq they where not, and in other cases, probably more in the future than in the past, they won’t be on board, too.
and yes, you CAN’T make great moves unless your allys agree and aid you.
surly, you are ABLE to win a war in a country like iraq, but i am sceptical if you are able to win a PEACE in a country like iraq if you’re going alone, and if you’re able to reach you aim of a safe middle east without your allys.
terrorism and preliferation ARE complex problems, and they are international problems, and they ONLY can be faced by a COALITION of many countries, no country on the world is able to achieve solotions in any of these complex problems.
in in my eyes, think gwbush would’nt agree here, the UN has the best possibilitys and the most experience in facing these international problems - it is not the first time it’s on their agena, but it is the first time it is on top of the US agenda - this has overthrown many things - but it didn’t change them.
the weapon inspectory of the UN are the best and the most experienced, the lawyers of the UN in questions of international law on proliferation are the best and experienced, and all the employees at UN and IAEA are experienced in their work. why should’nt use this infrastructure? if the US would have standed 100% behind all UN efforts to contain the treat of proliferation, and standed 100% behind efforts of solvong the problem of terrorism in a GLOBAL perspective, than it would have worked out.
— Please explain how the French and German positions were simply warning America that it was making a big mistake, and not self-interested.
it IS self-interested, islamic terrorism is a MUCH bigger treat to european countrys then to the us.
both, france and germany have many muslims living in their countrys, also radical and even some ready to use brutal fore.
and if there is a threat of WMD’s on rockets, then this threat is against europe not against the US which is much farther away from the ‘axis of evil’ and the other ‘evil-countries’.
we have a vital intrest in containing the treat of terrorism, in stopping the proliferation and facing future problems.
we also have a economic intrest in containig all these dangers, throughout the world and in the important regions even a bigger one then the US has: in south-east asia OUR trading relations are much higher then the US, so our economies are much more endangered here, the same in the middle-east, east-europe etc. etc.
and part of a ‘postion’ are not only gouvernmental speeces and decisions - a ‘postion’ is part of a grand debate of politicians and intelectuals thoughout the country. and what you could hear and read - and see in the decisions that where made was taht in fact it was a warning BECAUSE of self-intrest.
i think some of the decisions didn’t came at the right time, and let many americans think of a real opposition against america in germany, but that never was fact, nor it was fact that there where any mysterious relations between germany and saddam hussein, and that we tryed to let him stay in power - thats absolute nonsense let me say this with your words: ’ please do not try to minimize our motivations.’
— There is no difference between Sept. 12, 2001 and today in terms of where my head is at.
as you see - in europe it’s different, because there is a BIG difference between 9-11 and today. not because in these few month everybody who was going to church to pray with the americans, and everybody who laid down flowers at the US embassy now became an anti-americanist and is full of hatret, thats nonsense, but because of many germans, as many french and many europeans in general ALSO british etc., where offended by what the US did in the weeks and month’ after the WHOLE world offered them their help and aid to get one problem done together: international terrorism.
but instead of forming international alliances to face an international problem, international agreements where rejectet and by now there was a lack of universalism inside and outside the US and a lack of multilateralism - so many europeans where angry, and didn’t hate.
and they tried to begin a debate - but they where not heared at the other side of the atlantic.
— we are extremely motivated to do what needs to be done.
but I think you should think again about WHAT has to be done, and HOW this has to be done.
— Thanks again for the discussion. I hope that by trading perspectives we can come to a better understanding!
thanks a lot for making some good points. you really gave insight into american feeling, the same american feeling i was able to read in many US blogs, and which could be an important part in a multicultural exchange. i think it is much more important especially IN THESE DAYS, that europeans and americans get familiar with the position of each other, and try to UNDERSTAND each other.
and i hope i could give you some insights into, what i think from the european perspective, has to be done to reach the goals of the future, and live in a stable an secure world.
Thanks Maxim. I’ll need a little time to digest your post, and I appreciate the exhange. These issues would be a lot easier to iron out if I knew all the answers! Additionally, the jury is still out on the results of some of the actions we have taken, and probably will be for a good while.
I am much closer to understanding where and how we agree AND disagree, and that’s good to know. I’m seeing that we may have differing views on sovereignty, and what it means. It may be simply to do with the size/scope of the U.S. versus the average European country. Europe as a whole compares, as in the EU, but not so much individually. I’ll think about it and get back to you later!
——Brian
Brian makes an important statement in his post. I believe many people are of the mind that the world changed on September 11 2001 when we had a preemptive strike against this country.
There is a sinister familiarity to this statement that we dare not forget. It was Osama bin Ladin who said the American troops in Saudi Arabia in the early 90s were a moment when the world changed for him, and he began his war against the United States.
As humans we live short lives, less than 100 years, in which we occupy ourselves primarily with concerns of those who live around us. We respect our immediate ancestors, primarily going back two or three generations, but we don’t, as a rule, view the big picture. We seldom go back to history for answers. This is a failing we will always be guilty of, for the answers are always in the past. Too much human drama has been played out in history for there to be any situation that is “new” or “without parallel”. Past mistakes and successes are available to us if we take time to review and discuss them. Conflicts between peoples span generations and centuries and cross through government, cultural, and even religious changes without being forgiven.
It is for these reasons that I can’t agree with Brian that the world changed on September 11, 2001. Instead, I believe history came knocking, and it is up to us to decide what play to reenact .
Nice europeans and americans points of view.
Didn´t really surprise me either. I´m from latin America, but i could be from Africa, or Asia, or the Australia continent (don´t know how you call it in English).
Certaintly these continents don´t all agree on the point of view, but the reality is that we don´t really give a shit, cause we know that if it wasn´t US who had the power it would be any other country from the North America or Europe, and i doubt they wouldn´t do the same thing US did.
Argentina, Uruguai, Paraguai are pratically with no economy. Here in Brazil the government has no control on the narcotrafic and violence. Police doens´t do nothing. We have fear to leave our homes at night cause we could get a bullet in the head and don´t even know why! African countries are in civil war or starvation.
This Iraq thing is nothing compared to what is happening in the world. It´s a simple detail for the media sell its papers and people talk about and curse or defend the US.
We don´t care if the US goes and throws one billion bombs on someone. We are really occupied trying to live, trying to get a job, trying to get a good education, trying to eat, etc.
What really gets me pissed off is all the money that was, and is being, spent on military, while the rest of the world are starving, using drugs, killing each other.
“Is this the world that I want to live in?”
Well, someone answer me, when was the world a good place to live in?
When was everything ins its right place?
Its sad to see us humans destroying our planet, our food, our home, our lives…
A bad guy on the next street has taken over all of the houses on the street, including those of some of your friends. Another bad guy on another street has started to do the same thing, and these two bad guys have joined forces, claiming they’re the baddest guys around. You … being the really biggest guy around, who you know if you really put your mind to it, could go over there and trounce these bad guys. You’ll take some cuts and bruises, and frankly, you might not even come back alive, but you’ll probably succeed and free your friends and all of these others from the tyranny of these two bad guys.
Yes Chris, I just described World War II using your neighborhood analogy. In these difficult times the US finds itself as the only superpower, the only cop willing to go into bad neighborhoods. The police department (UN) has taken to fighting themselves for their own agendas, rendering the department ineffective. Yeah no WMD have been found, but don’t forget how clever Saddam is. Viscously clever. And please don’t forget that he has used chemical weapons on his own citizens. They had the weapons and they hid them or gave them away. It would be nice to have found some, but these weapons were there. Suggesting otherwise is naïve.
I believe you hit the nail on the head in your post regarding the American realpolitik goals in the Mideast. It made us all feel warm and fuzzy in the nineties when the UN seemed to be an effective world body. But alas it was short-lived, and the permanent members of the Security Council including the US returned to their own agendas. So the American agenda - partially motivated by oil, partially motivated by Israeli security concerns, partially motivated by its own desire for security from terrorism, and partially motivated by a desire to do good, has caused the Supreme Court-anointed W. to act. Whether you like W. or not (and I don’t), the neighborhood is a safer one.
A little about CONFRONTING EVIL. First, this isn’t a kids book about “good and evil”. That overly simplistic view wins support, because that is how we are raised. But I digress, the point of this is about REVENGE, and MILITARY CONFRONTATION as a means to bring about a better future. Most people I talk with about this seam to think that the alternative to war has no power, and does nothing. Again, an overly simple and very conveniant childlike view of things. Another thing to think about in our society in America is that it is a revenge based society, just ask Arnold Schwarzenegger. We solve our problems with guns in the movies, and that is a reflection of our anger and attitudes. But again, I’m getting off the subject. The main point I am making, or trying to make, is that YOU CAN BE STRONG AND PEACEFUL AT THE SAME TIME. The USA is the leader of the world, that’s the way it is, and we are a role model as such. We should show the world our strength and our resolve to uphold our virtues that we base our country on. What we just did was show the world we live by double standards. We said to the world “The ends justify the means!” while at the same time have laws that prevent that kind of action at home (thank god!). In my opinion, I am ashamed of that kind of behavior. As an American, I feel it demeans what our great country stands for.
Very engaging posts in this thread, interesting reading. The following quote caught my eye though and maybe some can expand on this paradox, or insight into a coward (OBL):
“There is a sinister familiarity to this statement that we dare not forget. It was Osama bin Ladin who said the American troops in Saudi Arabia in the early 90s were a moment when the world changed for him, and he began his war against the United States.”
Now, as I understand it, the United States didn’t just plop a bunch of personnel and hardware into the sand of Saudi Arabia in the 90’s without someone’s permission……the Saudi Royals perhaps?
It would seem to me, with my Western sensibilities that I’d be pretty pissed with my ruling government rather than the US, so why pick a fight with the US if the Saudi government allowed the US to set up shop at Prince Sultan Air Base, et al., especially when the Saudis were genuinely afraid that Hussein was threatening to invade the so-called ‘Kingdom’.
Prior to the Gulf War, Saudi Arabia and the US had conducted a number of military exercises and had actually developed a fairly solid military ‘friendship’ if there can be such a thing.
For an interesting read in this relationship, I would recommend one of Tom Clancy’s non-fiction books: “Every Man A Tiger” with General Chuck Horner.
So, the thought that came to my mind upon reading Overt’s statement was that OBL is truly a chickenshit coward after all.
The whole situation is about as complex as can be imagined and it won’t be fixed overnight, that’s for sure.
Cheers,
Don B.
Your analogy is an interesting one, Christopher, and your questions very good…I also agree that waging war against Iraq was hardly the best solution (and, I might add, not the best thought out). I would, however, argue that while it is very, very easy to illustrate what was/is wrong with this situation, the approach, the results, etc….It is far more difficult to follow it up with practical, well thought-out alternatives…”next steps” as they say. Why can’t alternatives…or better yet, SOLUTIONS be thrown out by the community of people who have so opposed the military action against Iraq, now that we are at the most critical point after the fact? The substantive, actionable kind - with precisely the kinds of nuances and challenges you bring up in your analogy, Christopher.
It is very easy to find faults and weaknesses in every policy, every military action, every…THING! … But it is up to all of us in the international community to think carefully about not just the “woulda-coulda-shouldas”, not just about “this/that is/was wrong/misguided/etc.”….. but..What IS the RIGHT, REALISTIC, ACTIONABLE approach to pursue, after the fact? This is where it gets very, very complicated, and absolutes and cliches don’t really do much to resolve the unbelievably complicated situation faced in Iraq (and the entire region) right now. This is why diplomacy and critical thinking are so very, very important. So my challenge to everyone who was critical of the war (myself included) is: what is the appropriate approach at this junction? Let’s stop complaining and pointing fingers (really, it’s so very boring and predictable) without thinking through and even proposing alternatives.
Ok, I’m off my soapbox now. Any thoughts, Chris?
“As for the America-haters here and abroad, you don’t have America to blame for Nazism …”
You’re kidding, right? Is there anybody left on this earth who doesn’t know that George Bush’s grandfather was very much involved in outfitting and financing the Nazis? Aside from the very questionable role U.S. politicians and big businesses played in setting up Saddam to start with. While we are brashly waving our own flag around and trying to force the rest of the world to bow to the Great Emperialistic Hedgerow (because we are going to save them from somebody else), we should study the history lessons one more time: without exception, every prior corrupt government which we now consider “evil” won over the hearts of its citizens, enough to allow it to carry out its attrocities, but convincing them that they were in danger of attack by other countries/people. Doesn’t that raise your danger antennae?
When we decide it is our sole right to trash/burn/kill ANYBODY ELSE for their own good, we are walking on quicksand. It happens that right now we have a power-hungry, shallow shell of a President who can convince like-minded citizens that he has had an inspiration. We are in extreme jeopardy already.
Elizabeth: In the spirit of your query, and since our war machine appears poised to keep on keeping on instead of winding down (so that there is even TIME to implement the “diplomacy and critical thinking” which were SO ignored before the Iraqi Fiasco), in my opinion the first and most important action we must take is this: impeach Bush, and remove his dangerous cronies from office. Right now.
I’d just like to say I’m quite pleased with the quality of comments on this post. Thanks to everyone for staying civil, intelligent and in depth. Bravo.
Don B -
Osama bin Laden DOES have tremendous beef with the Royal family. He’s had it for years, calling for the overthrow of the Saudis, as he called for Saddam Hussein’s overthrow many times. His call for jihad against the U.S. infidels did start when the Saudis allowed American troops in his holy land. For bin Laden and his cronies, it’s all about Allah, and anything that stands in the way of the pursuit of his extremist interpretation of the Quran - be it a bunch of cruel and wealthy dictators or rose-cheeked GI’s - is fair game.
He is able to continue to recruit new fighters because the U.S. continues to support despot governments like that of Saudi Arabia, and condone gross violations of international law and human rights by Israel. Resentment toward the U.S. in the Arab world (even scarier, the Muslim world) will continue to escalate as long as the American M.O. remains unchanged. Bullying people around the globe isn’t working as a viable way to wage this “War on Terrorism.” I believe Monday night’s bombings stand as alarming proof of that.
Christopher Allbritton constructs a story in which “As Rich Guy is rummaging around in the murderer’s house, he can’t find a single instrument of torture or the murder weapons that he used on his previous victims.” This quote and many of the comments are fascinating to me. Mass graves have been uncovered in Iraq. Many witnesses testify about the torture they were subject to. Others testify about the murder or disappearance of loved ones caused the Baathist regime. However, Allbritton believes he has constructed an apt analogy and most of the commentators apparently concur.
The analogy of Randal is even more interesting. “Guy on the corner obviously abuses his wife, neglects his kids, throws garbage in the neighbor’s yard.” These chosen analogies help me to understand the diversity of opinions on Iraq.
Actually, it is an apt analogy. I say in the second sentence: “A murderer is living in you neighborhood.” There’s no question Saddam was a murderer. There’s no question he killed a lot of people. The charge wasn’t that he was a nasty fellow; it was that he had WMD that were poised to hit the United States RIGHT NOW. When I wrote, “As Rich Guy is rummaging around in the murderer?s house, he can?t find a single instrument of torture or the murder weapons that he used on his previous victims,” it’s pretty clear I’m talking about WMDs in this analogy.
Thanks for your response Christoper Allbritton. I appreciate your courage in reporting from such a dangerous area. Continued best wishes to stay safe and report things as you see them.
The perceived aptness of the analogy illuminates differences of opinion. The cops in the analogy are intriguing. You note “And the cops aren’t much help; they say they have no evidence that he’s done anything lately.” Imagine the cops are shown mass graves in the front and back yards. Do they say that those graves are old thus they do not care about them, i.e., they are not “evidence that he’s done anything lately”? Or perhaps they say that they are not looking for graves. They must be shown a torture chamber and operative implements of torture, or they do not care what else may have happened? I would wonder about these “cops”.
I believe that torture chambers were found in Iraq. But in the constructed analogy the discovery of an actual torture chamber is inadequate. The discovery of mass graves and testimony of torture is inadequate. It is necessary to find a symbolic torture chamber and implements which represent WMDs otherwise the “man” is exonerated.
Another part of the analogy is somewhat odd. “So now Rich Guy has killed a man”. The “man” Saddam Hussein is not known to be dead. Perhaps the “man” is the Baath party. But almost all its members are still alive. Even the organization may still be operating to some extent. Perhaps the “man” is the country of Iraq? But that country seems more alive now then when it was controlled by the Saddam.
Analogies can never capture all aspects of a situation. They must abstract the elements and interrelationships considered central by the analogizer. Thanks for presenting a provocative one.
Don B. queried for further insight on my post regarding bin Ladin and his war. I wouldn’t call him chickenshit as that is a reaction that belittles a point of view prior to taking the time to truly analyze it and learn from it - if not else than to truly defend against it.
While I hate to spout off opinions, in the hope of furthering discussion I will put forth the reasoning, as I see it, for Osama’s war:
Islam, as we know, was a huge success immediately upon its introduction to the Middle East. Within a fantastically short time it had created a massive empire - one of the largest the world has known. Surprisingly, this empire was quite just. They allowed other religions to continue and even shared temples with Jews and Christians. Later, they bought some of these to convert them into the first mosques. They also collected science and technology from the dying Roman Empire and kept it during a time that Europe went back to relative ignorance. They furthered this science in dramatic ways.
Obviously this golden age came to an end. It can be debated endlessly who is to blame. I would be willing to bet Osama blames the Crusaders who came to free Jerusalem from Islamic captivity. I would say he feels that by returning to the roots of Islamic culture it can return to its noble stature of old.
I wouldn’t say that viewpoint is nuts. I wish his extremist methods weren’t viewed as legitimate. Yet to condemn this viewpoint as crazy and “not with the real and modern world” is unfortunately misguided as well. I recently did a channel surf and, passing several Christian channels, was shocked to hear similar rhetoric on many of them. Franklin Graham describes Islam as an “evil religion”. That concept is not going to help stop the growth of Islamic Fundamentalism. Pat Robertson wishes to organize Christian missions for Iraq. This is a very dangerous concept that would enrage people that otherwise might remain moderate. Several times I have seen Iraq described as Babylon and a sign of the coming end of days. This is even worse. Here you are equating a monotheistic religion that embraces the same patriarch as Christianity and Judaism with the ancient pantheistic Babylonian empire.
The most important thing we can give the Islamic world back is its dignity. They don’t want money, they don’t want to be left alone, they don’t want to eliminate all western culture. How the world gives them their dignity is worth of a large discussion.
Every country has their problems. The Islamic world, by and large, blames the West for them. Do we blame the Prussians for our failing public schools because the Kaiser set up the first public schools? No, we blame ourselves. When the Islamic world gets out of the mode of blaming its problems on others, it has the potential for progress. This requires a change in people’s thinking, which won’t happen until a Mohammed Mossadegh type of person takes power. What happened when the shah appointed mr. Mossadegh prime minister? The CIA/MI6 convinced themselves he was a communist threat and deposed him.
Would like to re-visit the Rich Guy analogy for a moment to make a point not yet explicitly hit upon - what about all the Rich Guy wannabes who have neighbors they don’t like. If Rich Guy gets off the hook, a precedent has been set for other people to murder their neighbors and date the widows. Even if the rule of law is restored later on, many neighbors will be murdered, their Mason jars pillaged, and their widows exploited while the Homeowners Association wastes time jawing about it.
If Dubya is re-elected in 2004, there will be no clearer illustration that Rich Guy is off the hook. I implore my fellow registered voters, regardless of your politics, to vote your way back INTO the process.
Has any one forgot the first scenes of the Mad Max III, colapsing world as a result of a human greed ? Word demokracy has lost it`s credibility. Insted globalisation is a therm of future.
For everyone who is blind, it is the end of the world as we knowet !
Eleya
This page has been a very interesting read.
One of the requests was:
“Please give examples of how America’s decisions have made the world a worse place.”
I’ve got some examples:
The Native Americans who occupied the current United States were promised peace and prosperity by Lewis and Clark, representing the president, Thomas Jefferson. We decided not to keep those promises and invaded and conquered these peoples instead of living “democratically” with the Native Americans. This dishonorable act did not make the world a better place although it did make The United States a richer place. The Early United States were partially populated by displaced African peoples who were held as slaves. The United States mistreatment and exploitation of these peoples did not make the world a better place. Although it did make The United States a richer place. This is ancient history.
Here is some more modern stuff:
Rather than start out by establishing democracy in the Philippines, we crushed a new democracy in the Philippines. If our imperial rule of Philippines made the world a better place, it was at the expense of our democratic ideals. We will never know what kind of a place the world would be if the Philippine nation had been allowed to maintain democracy.
http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.philippines24oct24,0,1208682.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1003/22phil.html
We also helped to oust the first democratic government in place in Iran. In this instance we took sides in an oil dispute between the Brits and the democratic nation of Iran that felt (amazingly enough) that Iran should control Iran’s oil resources.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34796
Are we trying to give the world “democracy” or “American Sovereignty?” We get pretty upset when countries like France, Germany, and Turkey follow that little rule of “democracy” that states, the leaders do what the population wants.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3432-2003Oct22.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2003/n04022003_200304026.html
I would like to know what democracy is and how constant support of United States policy seems to be part of the mix.
Laura Peters