More from Abu Ghraib

BAGHDAD — Well, it was bound to hap­pen. Aus­tralian papers and news shows are pub­lish­ing 60 new pho­tos from Abu Ghraib. They snap­shots were attained by the Amer­i­can Civil Lib­er­ties Union after a fed­eral judge ordered their release. That was delayed how­ever because the U.S. gov­ern­ment appealed the rul­ing.
And yet the pho­tos were leaked.
That the gov­ern­ment sat on these pho­tos for almost two years is stu­pid and point­less. _Of course_ they would get out. Did they really think they wouldn’t? They should have released all of them imme­di­ately and taken their blows. (A lit­tle fit of humil­ity or even — gasp — an apol­ogy would have been nice, too.) Even bet­ter: NOT TORTURING OR ABUSING PEOPLE TO BEGIN WITH.
These pho­tos are already being spun as “iso­lated inci­dents” that are no longer occur­ring, and that may be true. The Amer­i­cans may be “scared straight” by the reac­tion around the Mus­lim world to the pho­tos.
Alas, the same can’t be said for their allies in the Iraqi gov­ern­ment whose Shi’ite-dominated secu­rity forces are tor­tur­ing Sunni men to death and dump­ing their bod­ies at sewage plants in south­east Bagh­dad. Yeah, at least the U.S. never did that.
God, how did the bar get set so low?
These pho­tos come at a bad time, obvi­ously. The Dan­ish car­toon furor is still going on and the British have been caught on video beat­ing the snot out of teenagers in Basra. This will do lit­tle to calm things down. And I don’t even want to think how this may com­pli­cate things with Jill Car­roll, the Amer­i­can jour­nal­ist cur­rently being held in Iraq. (I’m not sure what to make of this report, though, in which Iraqi offi­cials say the United States actu­ally “delayed the release of sev­eral women”:http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32147 pris­on­ers — the key demand of Carroll’s kid­nap­pers — so as not to appear to be nego­ti­at­ing with ter­ror­ists. _Disclaimer: Jill is a friend of mine and I know her pretty well._)
But this is just par for the course for this admin­is­tra­tion. When faced with choos­ing between secrecy and open­ness, stub­born­ness and a will­ing­ness to get things done, the Bush peo­ple will always choose the secret, stub­born path — even if the easy thing to do is also the right thing to do. If they can’t turn back the clock and undo the tor­ture at Abu Ghraib, then by all means come clean and get it out of the way. When faced with the kid­nap­ping of an Amer­i­can civil­ian, they could get her out by either speed­ing up pris­oner releases or at least not imped­ing it. They were going to hap­pen any­way! In both cases, doing the right thing is, well, the right thing to do and it’s good pol­i­tics.
But that’s too com­pli­cated for these guys.

Here be Dragons…

BAGHDAD — Lately, I’ve been get­ting a lot of email from aspir­ing for­eign cor­re­spon­dents who want to cut their teeth in Bagh­dad. I under­stand the sen­ti­ment, I really do. But at this time, I think it’s an unwise course of action and I’d like to take a lit­tle space to out­line why.
First off, about my sit­u­a­tion for the new­com­ers here: I started this blog in August 2002 after a dash into Iraqi Kur­dis­tan the pre­vi­ous sum­mer. I had a hunch that war was com­ing and I wanted to get some time in, at least where I wouldn’t be hanged if caught in Iraq ille­gally. It was a thrilling time, run­ning around Erbil and Suleimaniya, always wor­ried if those shifty guys in the lobby of the Suleimaniya Palace were Iraqi _mukhabarat_ or Kur­dish _pesh merga_ or both, war­ily eye­ing each other over cheap cof­fee tables and fake flow­ers. I jour­neyed to Hal­abja and found myself enor­mously moved by the plight of the vic­tims of the 1988 chem­i­cal attacks there. I met senior mem­bers of the Barzani and Tal­a­bani clans, all major play­ers on the Iraqi polit­i­cal scene now, and by my ques­tions annoyed the hell out of the cur­rent president’s wife, Hiro Tal­a­bani. (No hard feel­ings, ma’am!)
Next, I did the whole blog-raising thing, chang­ing the par­a­digm for DIY report­ing in a war zone in the process. Who knew? Back-to-Iraq became a phe­nom­e­non and dona­tions even­tu­ally topped more than $11,000 that all went to cover the war in April 2003. It was thrilling and dan­ger­ous — and sur­pris­ingly easy report­ing. I really just wan­dered around, fol­low­ing explo­sions and writ­ing about my day. In the process, I cap­tured a bit of the heart of Iraqi Kur­dis­tan in its strug­gle against Saddam’s regime. I was there when “Kirkuk”:http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/2003/04/heading_south.php was taken back by the Kurds. I was in Tikrit when the last hold­outs melted into the land­scape, leav­ing the field to the Marines and “Arab fighters”:http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/2003/04/inside_saddams.php more inter­ested in defend­ing their homes from Kur­dish loot­ers than shoot­ing wan­der­ing jour­nal­ists. (Some of the great­est hos­pi­tal­ity I’ve been shown in Iraq was at the hands of the Tikri­tis as they stood around two dead _pesh merga_ and offered me pro­tec­tion against the Marines, know­ing full well I was an Amer­i­can jour­nal­ist. All they cared about was that I wasn’t Kur­dish.)
Ah, those were the days. Even “Baghdad”:http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/2003/04/clutching_for_a.php imme­di­ately after its fall felt open and watch­ful instead of boarded up and scared as it does today. The Marines and the 3rd ID walked the streets with­out hel­mets or body armor. They stood in queues wait­ing to buy food, amus­ing Iraqis to no end, for whom queues are a bit of an alien social arrange­ment. They’re more par­tial to crowds.
When I returned for the third time in May 2004, how­ever, things were dif­fer­ent. I had raised money again, this time as seed money for a more tra­di­tional free­lanc­ing career. I fig­ured the dona­tions and my sav­ings would see me through a cou­ple of months. How­ever, TIME Mag­a­zine snapped me up imme­di­ately and I’ve been work­ing with them ever since. So much for the two months I thought it would take to find a steady gig. And it’s a good thing, too, as by May 2004, the sit­u­a­tion had become very bad, with an insur­gency we all thought would not get worse but most assuredly did (and still is.) But even in those days, I remem­ber just hir­ing a cou­ple of guys to drive and trans­late and run around the city at all hours of the day and night. One of my best mem­o­ries was a drunken evening at Dragon Bay, the Chi­nese restau­rant out­side the Green Zone that had a karaoke machine. My col­leagues and I war­bled away until 1 a.m. or so and then made my poor dri­ver — who didn’t much like Chi­nese food — take us home. Along the way, we saw John Simp­son, of the BBC, doing a standup report in the dark­ness of the city. Drunken with cheap red wine and the thrill of the for­bid­den, one of my friends yelled out “John Simp­son sucks!” Sorry, John. Pro­fes­sion­al­ism did not rule the night. Hope the standup went OK.
Such stunts are unimag­in­able now. I don’t know any West­ern col­leagues who go out­side our com­pound at night. Our social life has been reduced to din­ner par­ties and pool par­ties. But the work is what’s even worse. Every day we ven­ture out with eyes peeled for kid­nap­pers (who like soft tar­gets such as jour­nal­ists), IEDs, Amer­i­can patrols and trigger-happy Iraqi troops. The ambi­ent threat has risen far past Con­di­tion Red. the Com­mit­tee to Pro­tect Jour­nal­ist has listed Iraq, for the sec­ond year in a row, as “the most dan­ger­ous place in the world to work as a journalist”:http://cpj.org/attacks04/mideast04/iraq.html. “Sixty–sevennine jour­nal­ists have been killed”:http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/28/iraq.journalists.reut/ here since March 2003, accord­ing to Reporters with­out Bor­ders. That’s more than the _20 years_ of the Viet­nam War (19551975). Some have been killed by Amer­i­can neg­li­gence and error. Oth­ers were “mur­dered by ter­ror­ist thugs”:http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/2005/08/steven_vincent.php. Five of my friends have been kid­napped, but thank­fully all were released. One kid­napped jour­nal­ist, Italy’s Enzo Bal­doni, was killed. I didn’t know him.
My point is that this is no longer a freelancer’s war. I’m lucky. I have the entire secu­rity appa­ra­tus of TIME Mag­a­zine to back me up. I am pro­tected by guards, have access to cars, the entire secure com­pound, you name it. I have an edi­tor who would miss me if I didn’t show up. (All of the kid­napped jour­nal­ists have been free­lancers who didn’t check in reg­u­larly and peo­ple often didn’t know there were miss­ing at first.)
All of these pro­tec­tions cost money, some­thing most free­lancers are short of. It is sim­ply no longer advis­able to hire a dri­ver and trans­la­tor and go run­ning around the city like I did last sum­mer. I’ve been get­ting a num­ber of emails from young jour­nal­ists ask­ing to do just this, and I tell them not to come and do this unless they have the back­ing of a major media organization’s secu­rity infra­struc­ture. Steve Vin­cent ended up dead because he cow­boyed around Basra — and that’s one of the safe cities, we’re told.
One option, how­ever, is to embed with the U.S., British or other Coali­tion forces. You will be safe, rel­a­tively, and you’ll get to see parts of the coun­try other than Bagh­dad — which is thick with jour­nal­ists any­way. It’s an inter­est­ing expe­ri­ence, and I’ve found, in my expe­ri­ences, the accu­sa­tions of cen­sor­ship — with one excep­tion — to be grossly exag­ger­ated. If you get a cool com­man­der, he prob­a­bly won’t give you any grief.
(Of course, there are some common-sense and rea­son­able restric­tions: don’t give away troop posi­tions, don’t show the faces of dead sol­diers before their fam­ily has been noti­fied or 48 hours, whichever comes first. Things like that.)
Oh, and for­get about embed­ding with the Iraqi forces. The Min­istries of Inte­rior and Defense don’t allow this and they don’t oper­ate inde­pen­dently of Coali­tion troops any­way. Also, they’re often so poorly trained and pos­si­bly infil­trated you would be in even more dan­ger from the Iraqi troops than from ran­dom, street-level vio­lence in Bagh­dad — which is why the Coali­tion and Iraqi min­istries don’t allow embed­ding solely with Iraqis. A jour­nal­ist killed or betrayed by the troops he’s sup­posed to be embed­ded with is very bad PR.
This is all very frus­trat­ing I’m sure. I can still remem­ber the hus­tle that got me out here, and it pains me to dis­cour­age new peo­ple, but “I’ve already seen one friend die”:http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/2005/04/our_heart_and_c.php because she was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and I’m in con­stant fear that it will hap­pen again. All the free­lancers I know, includ­ing me, now have long-term rela­tion­ships that pro­vide us the infra­struc­ture to “work.” And many orga­ni­za­tions seem to be cut­ting back on their cov­er­age and, thus, their hir­ing.
There are plenty of places that need ener­getic, young jour­nal­ists. Dar­fur, south­ern Thai­land, Indone­sia, even Syria (if you can swing the secu­rity appa­ra­tus.) For those with­out expe­ri­ence in extremely dan­ger­ous work con­di­tions, this is no place for on-the-job train­ing.

Tech­no­rati Tags: , ,

Iran’s role in Iraq

Finally! I’ve dropped numer­ous hints over the last few months of Iran­ian involve­ment in Iraq, but I never went into detail. Now, thank­fully, this is the story that has informed my Iran­ian com­ments. I didn’t want to spill too much of the beans because it’s not cool to scoop your own mag­a­zine on a blog, but this is an impor­tant story. I wish I could say I con­tributed to it, but Mick is a hell of a reporter and this is his baby.

Shahwani’s interview—Finally!

A while back, I men­tioned that I would post the full al-Sharq inter­view with Gen­eral Muham­mad Abdul­lah Shah­wani, Iraq’s intel­li­gence chief, from Jan. 4. I got snowed under by elec­tion deadlines–sorry about that–but here it is finally. More infor­ma­tion on what the offi­cial line is on the insur­gency. Shahwani’s gen­er­ally been a good source, and I’m inclined to believe a lot of what he says–mainly because it matches a lot of what I’ve got­ten from other folks.

What is your opin­ion about the num­ber of the armed fight­ers in Iraq?

Offi­cially call them ter­ror­ists because they are doing ter­ror­ism against the peo­ple and they are out­laws. Their num­ber is between 20,000, 30,000, in the whole of Iraq, dis­trib­uted in the Sunni area. The peo­ple who live in this area emo­tion­ally sup­port them, and they are about 200,000 with­out offer­ing them money or logis­tic sup­port. For exam­ple, they don’t give any infor­ma­tion about their activ­i­ties if they have this information.

That means those 200,000 do not fight with the fight­ers?

It’s impos­si­ble that the fight­ers’ num­bers reach 200,000. These are those who live in those areas where the fight­ers are active–for exam­ple the right side of Mosul is com­pletely out of control–and in this area, the ter­ror­ist are very active with­out any infor­ma­tion about them from the local peo­ple, and very often they offer them shel­ter (hospitality).

Are those fight­ers from one group or many dif­fer­ent groups?

They are from the rem­nants of the Ba’ath Party, from Islamic extrem­ists and others.

The Iraqis and Amer­i­cans have claimed the Jor­dan­ian extrem­ist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is behind this ter­ror­ism, but recently they’ve started point­ing to the Ba’ath party and its lead­ers. Is there any changes or some new facts?

There are no changes, but the Ba’ath Party has been orga­nized for a long time. What hap­pened is they reor­ga­nized them­selves and they are get­ting money and sup­port from their lead­ers in Syria. Their oper­a­tions are well-developed because or their large num­ber, their expe­ri­ence and their financ­ing ability.

How many Ba’athists are involved in the armed oper­a­tions now?

I can’t tell the exact num­ber but we expect the Ba’athists before num­bered two mil­lion and if we expect 20% of them are involved now that mean the num­ber is very huge and all of them are well-organized and armed and some start work­ing with them after they found them­selves job­less. Most of them are from the for­mer Iraqi army.

Who leads these orga­ni­za­tions now?

As we know the Ba’ath Party divided into many parts, and now there are three wings, the most pow­er­ful wing, which belongs to the for­mer regime, got a large quan­tity of money.

Who are those lead­ers?

There is Izzat al Douri, Mohammed Unis al Ahmed, who is mov­ing between Syria and Iraq and Sabawi al Has­san and other Ba’ath lead­ers who live in Syria.

Do you think that there is for­eigner or Arab sup­port?

They don’t need finan­cial sup­port. The Ba’ath Party, as you know, was the rich­est party in the world, and was gain­ing 5% from the oil ben­e­fits since 1970 for the party budget.

Has the Iraqi gov­ern­ment asked the Syr­ian gov­ern­ment to hand them over?

There have been such attempts, but there are no results so far.

But hasn’t the Syr­ian gov­ern­ment denied their exis­tence in their ter­ri­to­ries?

No. We are sure that they are in Syria and they are mov­ing eas­ily between Syria and Iraq border,

Are there any other Ba’ath lead­ers?

There is a group that split itself from the for­mer regime under the lead­er­ship of the Taih Abdul Karim and Naim Hadad and both work­ing inside Iraq.

Did the Amer­i­can mil­i­tary oper­a­tions in Fal­lu­jah lead to a decrease in ter­ror­ist oper­a­tions?

It became less only in Fallujah.

And in the rest of Iraq?

In gangs war which acted by the ter­ror­ism groups we can’t get the results as we get in the orga­nized army war, or the tra­di­tional war. The goal from Fal­lu­jah oper­a­tion was to destroy the ter­ror­ism gangs or to cap­ture their mem­bers but the results in Fal­lu­jah we could not cap­ture the ter­ror­ists or kill their lead­ers, we did not see or hear about cap­tur­ing or killing any big leader of ter­ror­ism, all the lead­ers of the ter­ror­ism have left Fal­lu­jah before the oper­a­tions started already.

And they went work­ing in other sites or hid­ing out­side Fal­lu­jah in each fight there is a goal and the goal of Fal­lu­jah oper­a­tion was to destroy the ter­ror­ist and their lead­er­ship but the goal was not done actu­ally in spite of the full con­trol­ling of Fallujah.

What are the sources of the armed group?

The Ba’ath Party, extrem­ist Islamist orga­ni­za­tion like Ansar al-Sunna, Tawhid w’al-Jihad, Ansar al-Islam, the 1920 Rev­o­lu­tion and other from these names and its reached about 12 groups.

All these groups you men­tioned are Sun­nis. Are there any Shi’ite groups?

The group of Moq­tada al-Sadr was fight­ing just like the oth­ers before, but now there is no Shi’ite group car­ry­ing weapons against the government.

The state­ment of the Iraqi offi­cials pointed to Iran and Syria con­sider them the two sources of sup­port­ing these oper­a­tions, is there any changes in this sub­ject?

I am per­son­ally did not notice any changes in their atti­tudes and the prob­lems still com­ing from those two coun­tries because the bor­ders are open and the sup­port is still com­ing in.

What are the effects of the armed oper­a­tions on the elec­tions process?

For sure there is a neg­a­tive effects on the elec­tions. Some of the Iraqi peo­ple will not be able to reach vot­ing cen­ters, and this will affect the elec­tion process.

What is the need for the intel­li­gence sys­tem in a demo­c­ra­tic regime?

There is no coun­try in the whole world that has no intel­li­gence sys­tem to pro­tect the coun­try and the peo­ple and mon­i­tor­ing the gangs like drug gangs and all other cases to stop them includ­ing all the cases that is related to the secu­rity of the coun­try. Usu­ally we observe and col­lect infor­ma­tion to be deliv­ered to the secu­rity forces so secu­rity forces can do its duties to pro­tect the country.

Do you think that the armed oper­a­tion will increase or decrease?

It depends on the elec­tion. We have to wait for the result and then we will see. As a secu­rity sys­tem we expect this kind of oper­a­tions will decrease within one year.

What are the most unse­cured areas in Iraq now?

Mis­tak­enly, they call it the Sunni tri­an­gle, but there are other unse­cured areas like Diyala, which has 50% of its pop­u­la­tion Shi’ite and also the north of Baby­lon, which is extended to reach Sow­era and Salman Pak. All these areas are very dif­fi­cult to reach, for exam­ple the area between Had­har and Mosul its out of con­trol and those armed group in the streets search­ing the peo­ple and also the area which extend from Shar­qat down to Baiji and Samara. All these areas are unse­cured in addi­tion to Ramadi, Fal­lu­jah and its sur­round­ing areas, while inside Bagh­dad there is Haifa street and Adhamiya and Dora and Ghaz­a­liya and Air­port road and all these areas are unse­cured and dan­ger­ous and may God give those ter­ror­ists their punishment.

One Year Later…

A year ago today, we saw the open­ing salvos of Oper­a­tion Iraqi Free­dom.

War erupted Wednes­day night as the United States launched dozens of Tom­a­hawk cruse mis­siles and aimed 2,000-pound bombs at Iraqi leader Sad­dam Hus­sein and other “lead­er­ship tar­gets” in Bagh­dad.
The strike was aimed as “decap­i­tat­ing” Saddam’s regime and specif­i­cally tar­geted him, his two sons and other senior lead­ers of the Baath party and Iraqi Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Com­mand Coun­cil, accord­ing to a senior Bush offi­cial.
Pres­i­dent Bush, address­ing the nation from the Oval Office about 45 min­utes after the first attacks said, “On my orders, coali­tion forces have begun strik­ing selected tar­gets of mil­i­tary impor­tance to under­mine Sad­dam Hussein’s abil­ity to wage war.”

– Knight-Ridder Newspapers

(You can read Bush’s Oval Office address from last year here. What we know now…) Moments before the cam­era began broad­cast­ing to the nation, Knight-Ridder reports that Bush pumped his fist and said, “Feels good.“
B2I was busy.”:http://back-to-iraq.com/archives/2003_03_19.php
A year later, how­ever, things don’t feel so good.

The inva­sion and occu­pa­tion of Iraq, his admin­is­tra­tion pre­dicted, would come at lit­tle finan­cial cost and would mate­ri­ally improve the lives of Iraqis. Amer­i­cans would be greeted as lib­er­a­tors, Bush offi­cials pre­dicted, and the top­pling of Sad­dam Hus­sein would spread peace and democ­racy through­out the Mid­dle East.
Things have not worked out that way, for the most part. There is evi­dence that the eco­nomic lives of Iraqis are improv­ing, thanks to an infu­sion of U.S. and for­eign cap­i­tal. But the admin­is­tra­tion badly under­es­ti­mated the finan­cial cost of the occu­pa­tion and seri­ously over­stated the ease of paci­fy­ing Iraq and the warmth of the recep­tion Iraqis would give the U.S. invaders. And while peace and democ­racy may yet spread through the region, some early signs are that the U.S. action has had the oppo­site effect.

On the major plus side, Sad­dam Hus­sein and his pig­gish sons are cap­tured and dead, respec­tively. The peo­ple of Iraq have a future, but of what kind remains to be seen.
But the ratio­nales for going to war have been proven — every one — to be trans­par­ently wrong and/or fraud­u­lent. There were no ter­ror ties. There were no WMDs, nor the abil­ity to pro­duce them. There was no threat to the region because Sad­dam was effec­tively caged. Mean­while, the real prob­lem, Pak­istan, has been shown to be promis­cu­ous with its nuclear tech­nol­ogy. Its chief nuclear sci­en­tist, A.Q. Khan, was par­doned with nary a peep from the Bush Admin­is­tra­tion. In fact, Pak­istan had its ally sta­tus upgraded, open­ing the door to new weapons sales! Hey, guys: The Pak­istani ISI is _not_ your friend. They like Osama.
And speak­ing of Osama bin Laden. Al Qaeda’s No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri seems to have slipped the net the Pak­ista­nis were attempt­ing to draw around him for the last two days.

The fren­zied spec­u­la­tion was trig­gered by the sight­ing of a for­eigner being whisked away at high speed in a bullet-proof vehi­cle Tues­day when para­mil­i­tary units were search­ing for tribes­men wanted for shel­ter­ing Al Qaeda fugi­tives.
The vehi­cle burst out of a tribal com­pound, two oth­ers emerged to pro­tect it, and scores of fight­ers appeared from sev­eral direc­tions, hurl­ing grenades and fir­ing at the Pak­istani troops.
The entire unit of 50 troops was “vir­tu­ally wiped out,” the offi­cial said. Fif­teen were killed, 22 were injured and another 13 are still missing.

Back in Wash­ing­ton, Bush addressed the nation today and, in typ­i­cal form, 1) made no dis­tinc­tion between the war against al Qaeda and Iraq; 2) refused to acknowl­edge that the job in Afghanistan is incom­plete and that the Tal­iban con­trol a third of the coun­try, again; 3) implied that Spain, South Korea and oth­ers who are recon­sid­er­ing their par­tic­i­pa­tion in the Iraqi adven­ture are appeas­ing bin Laden and 4) while admit­ting that his poli­cies have split tra­di­tional alliances and alien­ated friends, papered over the depths to which the U.S. has fallen in the eyes of many.
“There have been dis­agree­ments in this mat­ter, among old and val­ued friends,” he said. “Those dif­fer­ences belong to the past. All of us can now agree that the fall of the Iraqi dic­ta­tor has removed a source of vio­lence, aggres­sion, and insta­bil­ity in the Mid­dle East.“
Can we? Actu­ally, the biggest source of insta­bil­ity is the Israeli-Palestinian prob­lem, which some in the White House said the Iraq war would solve. It’s worse than ever with Bush hav­ing done lit­tle to push it for­ward. His “roadmap” is in tat­ters because of Bush’s unwill­ing­ness to stand up to Ariel Sharon and his set­tle­ment plans.
“Who would pre­fer that Saddam’s tor­ture cham­bers still be open?” Bush asked. “Who would wish that more mass graves were still being filled? Who would begrudge the Iraqi peo­ple their long-awaited lib­er­a­tion?“
Well, no one is. What’s being begrudged is the way Bush screwed up the march to war in the United Nations, the lack of post-war plan­ning and the sheer arro­gance the White House has shown to any­one who dis­agrees with them. When John Kerry said more/foreign lead­ers sup­ported his can­di­dacy, it was a gaffe not because it isn’t true, but because it is.
So good on ya, Mr. Pres­i­dent, that Sad­dam is gone. And I sin­cerely mean that. I was in Iraq in July 2002 and saw the front between the Kurds and the Iraqi troops. I talked with sur­vivors of the Hal­abja mas­sacre. I met with “fam­i­lies who had fled Kirkuk”:http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000118.php when Sad­dam “Ara­bized” them out of their homes. I was there dur­ing the war, and saw “how happy”:http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000351.php#000351 many Iraqis — Kurds and Arabs alike — were that Sad­dam was gone.
But things are not going well now, and that’s mostly your fault, Mr. Pres­i­dent. I didn’t oppose the war in Iraq because I’m a paci­fist — I whole­heart­edly sup­ported Afghanistan. And I didn’t oppose it because I’m a sup­porter of tyrants. I opposed it because it was poorly planned from the get-go, cyn­i­cally sold to the Amer­i­can peo­ple, alien­at­ing to Amer­i­can allies and a dis­trac­tion from the real enemy — al Qaeda and its con­stel­la­tion of ter­ror groups. You have yet to con­vince me that top­pling Sad­dam was worth the deaths of 676 coali­tion troops and thou­sands of Iraqi con­scripts and civil­ians despite the imme­di­ate ben­e­fits of the war. A year later, I’m not alone in still wrestling with this conun­drum, and your sim­ple black and white, “no neu­tral ground” state­ments don’t make the issue any clearer.
“Feels good”? It didn’t then, and it doesn’t now.