Margaret Hassan

[Ronin]

Look, I know this whole Iraq debacle was caused by malicious misrepresentation and blatant neocon ideology...but, should this lady (http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6584637) be murdered, I will have to concede that we are past the point of no return and will give my support to further intense military action.

Please don't give me any shit about the innocent Iraqis that have been killed and are still being killed on an almost daily basis as if I have no consideration for them equally...because I do and have fucking factored that fully into the pros and cons of my view.

Yeah, I am being manipulated.

Who here isn't?

[wei yau]

Please don't give me any shit about the innocent Iraqis that have been killed and are still being killed on an almost daily basis as if I have no consideration for them equally...because I do and have fucking factored that fully into the pros and cons of my view.


Actually, in my estimation she is just as innocent as the innocent Iraqis that have been killed. It breaks my heart that this is happening to her. From what I understand, she's been a dedicated professional working for the Iraqi people for a good long time.

My ire is directed at the bastard terrorists and the bastard that spawned the entire debacle. A pox on both their houses.

[livius drusus]

Look, I know this whole Iraq debacle was caused by malicious misrepresentation and blatant neocon ideology...but, should this lady (http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6584637) be murdered, I will have to concede that we are past the point of no return and will give my support to further intense military action.

Why would her murder in particular pass the point of no return (as opposed to, say, the same danger for the Italian ladies from a few months ago), and why does crossing the point of no return mean intense military action?

[Socratoad]

The abduction of this woman strikes very close to me personally. When I was engaged in volunteer humanitarian aid years ago, I had the great privilege of meeting her, not once but twice. Even then she was becoming a bit of a legend in the field. Everybody respected her, and she quite simply radiated warmth and sincerity. And so yes I feel so very much for her and her family and friends.

The problem as the Toad sees it is that in every society there is, and always have been, a certain percentage of sociopaths and just plain out and out cruel crazy people. War, revolution or any rupture in the social fabric presents an opportunity for such people to torture, murder, rape and whatever pretty much without sanction. In fact with just a little media and other public relations manipulation they often become "hero" figures in the eyes of many who themselves have been oppressed and disenfranchised in so many ways.

And so there is nothing to be gained by blaming this ugly phenomena on any one particular religion or ideology. The only way such injustices can be kept to a minimum is by providing a reasonably stable society. In short: minimizing the opportunities for sociopaths.

So sayeth the Toad.

PS: please read carefully as there will be a written test at the end the coming week.

[Ronin]

Why would her murder in particular pass the point of no return (as opposed to, say, the same danger for the Italian ladies from a few months ago), and why does crossing the point of no return mean intense military action?

I just simply did not include every single other innocent so far, liv. I was hoping the Iraqi reference would succeed at bringing that point across.

This is simply "it" for me...all others included...whichever favored slaughtered or violated innocent that any other reader of this thread has as well.

And it means intense military action for me because, in my view, I have passed the point of no return where that now becomes the more viable solution to bring ultimate societal stability.

As opposed to sitting around achieving "ire" or casting a pox on both houses.

Fuck that.

What is the acceptable amount of hostage taking and murder here?

What amount of pussy-footing around will keep more of this shit from happening?

I love your mind, liv, give me some alternative.

[livius drusus]

I love your mind, liv, give me some alternative.

Oh shit, darling, I'm fucked if I know. I just don't think intensifying the battle will do the deed either. It seems to me like it could very well make things worse, in fact. :(

[Farren]

The way I see it, it was evident from the beginning that a fair proportion of the resistance to the US invasion consisted of batshit crazy fundamentalists and extremists. But that isn't, in turn, a reason to wholeheartedly support the US invasion and subsequent conduct in Iraq.

Through poor planning, blatant alterior motives (evidenced by, for instance, Bremer enacting edicts that exposed Iraq to economic rape in a way that no Western government would allow at home) and piss-poor post invasion management and conduct, the US has, in fact screwed up a lot of Iraqi's lives.

To endorse and support such negligence and villiany in an unqualified way because the other side contains barbaric elements is to endorse collective punishment and forgive any rank stupidity and greed. You don't have to agree with one side of an argument because you disagree with the other. You can disagree with both.

You can, for instance, throw your support behind the idea that the US should relinquish control of peacekeeping activities and place its forces in Iraq under UN control. Bear in mind quite a number of UN members initially offered assistance conditional on UN control, a condition Bush and his evil cabal refused to even consider. More recently the US has refused to allow a force not under US control to protect UN staff in Iraq.

[livius drusus]

I agree Farren, and I suspect Ronin does as well. The question for him - and he should of course correct me at Glockpoint if I'm wrong - is what we need to do now, on the ground, to stop this shit.

Edit: Hey! You snuck that last para in after I had posted, Farren. Now I look like even more of a total tool than usual. :shakefist:

[Ronin]

I do disagree with both, Farren. I figured that into my OP.

Maybe you can give me the alternative.

Dammit...tricksy Farren, very tricksy

[Ronin]

You can, for instance, throw your support behind the idea that the US should relinquish control of peacekeeping activities and place its forces in Iraq under UN control. Bear in mind quite a number of UN members initially offered assistance conditional on UN control, a condition Bush and his evil cabal refused to even consider. More recently the US has refused to allow a force not under US control to protect UN staff in Iraq.

Holy shit. They blew the fuck out of the UN.

Do you really think the UN is some sort of militarily and/or strategically significant force that can put down this shit?

Are you suggesting that intense military force is necessary...it just has to be from the UN to make it all better?

Someone bury the hatchet and let's just get this done.

[Farren]

You can, for instance, throw your support behind the idea that the US should relinquish control of peacekeeping activities and place its forces in Iraq under UN control. Bear in mind quite a number of UN members initially offered assistance conditional on UN control, a condition Bush and his evil cabal refused to even consider. More recently the US has refused to allow a force not under US control to protect UN staff in Iraq.

Holy shit. They blew the fuck out of the UN.

Do you really think the UN is some sort of militarily and/or strategically significant force that can put down this shit?

Are you suggesting that intense military force is necessary...it just has to be from the UN to make it all better?

Someone bury the hatchet and let's just get this done.

Some people blew the fuck out of the UN. Other's, like Sadr, said they would acquiese to UN control.

Sadr.

The point is Iraqi's trust the UN a hell of a lot more than they trust the US. They trust the French more than they trust the US according to a Gallup poll. The UN unarguably has more credibility. No-one trusts an army under the current US administration's control.

Its quite probable that less intense military force would be necessary if some of the largest militias are willing to cease violence should a peacekeeping force under the control of a more neutral body be realised.

That a peacekeeping force is necessary is obvious at this point, but the lessons of the past indicate that the US efforts thus far deviate quite significantly from successful peacekeeping formulas.

While a degree of force is required, successful UN efforts have generally coupled force with more successful diplomatic efforts and are generally not accompanied by brazen profiteering, which tends to convince people that the real aim is not their welfare but the theft of their resources and the setting up of a client state.

I've seen a lot of interviews with Iraqi's and their thinking on the US occupation appears to be fairly sophisticated. Sympathy and tacit support for the resistance in the general population is largely motivated by a lack of trust in US motives and a lack of belief in the sincerity of efforts towards their wellbeing.

Iraqi's are well aware of Allawi's former relationship to the CIA, for instance. IIRC, the UN envoy baldly stated that the US basically forced the choice of Allawi as interim leader on Iraq, despite the window-dressing of consensus.

[edit]
Sorry about my habit of editing every other post :D

[Socratoad]

I agree Farren, and I suspect Ronin does as well. The question for him - and he should of course correct me at Glockpoint if I'm wrong - is what we need to do now, on the ground, to stop this shit.

Edit: Hey! You snuck that last para in after I had posted, Farren. Now I look like even more of a total tool than usual. :shakefist:

Glockpoint?

[livius drusus]

Glockpoint?
Care to 'splain, Ronin, sir, or shall I?

[beyelzu]

Ronin is a gun nut


as proof I point out that he carries one with him during most of his waking hours

:D

[beyelzu]

Hopefully, a change in the administration will lead to actually rebuilding Iraq and thus help stop this shit.

It fucking kills me that humanitarian workers are being targeted at all, what the fuck is the point?

[viscousmemories]

I know optimism doesn't suit me, really, but didn't they let the Italian women and some others go because they were humanitarian aid workers and not contractors?

[Dingfod]

Ronin is a gun nut


as proof I point out that he carries one with him during most of his waking hours

:DHe probably sleeps with it too.


No offense, Ronin.

[Socratoad]

I know optimism doesn't suit me, really, but didn't they let the Italian women and some others go because they were humanitarian aid workers and not contractors?

Perhaps that is so. Of course rumours continue to persist that a rather princely ransom was paid. Not that I give a damn either way as long as the women were saved.

PS: viscousmemories, I have often wondered if anyone ever asked you just what vicious memories you were harbouring and did they have a traumatic effect upon your childhood? :D

Knowing just how often people misread handles I suspect that some have misread yours.

[viscousmemories]

PS: viscousmemories, I have often wondered if anyone ever asked you just what vicious memories you were harbouring and did they have a traumatic effect upon your childhood? :D
Ironically I did have a fairly traumatic childhood, but I don't have the memories.

Knowing just how often people misread handles I suspect that some have misread yours.
It's happened often enough that I've seriously considered changing it.

[Dingfod]

Nothing against you or a comment on your style at all, but I'd want mine to read viscious if it were me. My handle is soooo fucking original, my fucking first and middle names merged? I'm fucking sick of it.

[Ronin]

Ronin is a gun nut


as proof I point out that he carries one with him during most of his waking hours

:DHe probably sleeps with it too.


No offense, Ronin.

None taken, warrenly.

As a matter of coincidence, I recently addressed (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=101928&page=6&pp=25) this over at IIDB.

Thanks, everyone, for being patient with me and offering your views.

Farren, I don't think that Iraqi's trust either of the "outside" agencies. My personal feeling is that there would still be more of the same under even a UN mandate.

There comes a time when it just doesn't matter who does it...as long as it gets done.

[viscousmemories]

They believe she's been killed today. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4017515.stm) :(

[Petra]

"She had no prejudice against any creed. She dedicated her whole life to working for the poor and vulnerable, helping those who had no-one else."


:rainy:

[Darren]

Farren, I don't think that Iraqi's trust either of the "outside" agencies. My personal feeling is that there would still be more of the same under even a UN mandate.

There comes a time when it just doesn't matter who does it...as long as it gets done.

What exactly is it that you want done? Surely "intense military action" is what is actually happening in Iraq right now. How is that going to solve the problem of hostage taking? As others have pointed out, it is the military action that has spawned the hostage taking and executions. Do you really think that hammering the Iraqis even harder will lessen the likelihood of such events arising in the future?


Here's an interesting question: how do you get a population behind a relatively unpopular revolutionary movement (say, islamic extremists for example)?

Here's how the Algerian FLN movement managed to transform itself from a small minority group of "extremists" (in this case anti-colonial and liberator) to the leading political power of a new nation, as described by Ahmed Ben Balla, head of the FLN and first president of Algeria:


First - attack French civilians in the vicinity of an area where no popular FLN support exists. Make sure it is atrocious enough to provoke anger.

Second - stand well back as the French military move in, killing, arresting, torturing and destroying the homes of the local populace in an attempt to stamp out terrorism.

Third - move in later to harness the newly created political energy (born out of anger and resentment) of the harassed population.


This recipe, of course, absolutely requires intensified military action in order to produce results on a large scale, and the more intense the military action, the greater the power of the revolutionaries. Nothing was more damaging to the FLN in the early days of the conflict than the absence of brutal French military action, nothing helped their cause more than mass arrests, house to house searches, bombing, torture and the general brutality of the military. The war with Algeria nearly broke France in the end, there was political unrest on a mass scale within the country and, towards the end of the war, French generals plotted to kill Da Gaulle and even hatched plans to drop an airborne division, stationed at the time in Algeria, on Paris in order to effect a putsch.

We could compare the FLN strategy to current events on two levels:

The first level is national, with, for instance, the military action of the coalition in Iraq (and perhaps the intensified military action provoked by hostage taking and other acts of terror) causing popular resentment and pushing popular support towards small but active groups of Islamic extremists. Parallels have been noted in other places, particularly Palestine.

The second level is international - for example Iraq was a secular country, Islamic institutions were not favoured there and Sharia was not in force. People like Ben laden and groups like AL-Qaida were not welcome. Saddam was the "little Satan" who warred with Iran. Now there is a real prospect of armed insurrection by Islamic extremists. Afghanistan is in the hands of warlords, little different from the Taliban, practically everywhere except Kabul. Perhaps Ben Laden is delighted with the state of affairs. Perhaps the "ummah" (the bond linking muslims) is what he relies upon to turn more and more people in various places around the world against the U.S. and ultimately to drive them from the Middle East, and especially from Saudi Arabia, which is his stated intention. If this is the case, Bush and Co. are playing right into his hands.


As for a solution - certainly suspend U.S. control of Iraq, turning it over to the U.N or even better, the U.N. in conjunction with the Arab League. Strengthen international law in order to better pursue criminals like Ben Laden (and others who shall remain nameless!) and close down tax havens to prevent the flow of finance to terrorist groups. Begin the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from the Middle East. The intensification of military action in Iraq and elsewhere will only provoke more violence and instability worldwide.


Furthermore, we should bear in mind that Margaret Hassan was also an Iraqi, albeit of foreign origin. We take note of her murder because she wasn't an Arab. If she had been, there would not be such an outcry in the West. Her death is a shocking outrage, but how much more so is the killing of children in Iraq by intense military action.

[Ronin]

This recipe, of course, absolutely requires intensified military action in order to produce results on a large scale, and the more intense the military action, the greater the power of the revolutionaries. Nothing was more damaging to the FLN in the early days of the conflict than the absence of brutal French military action, nothing helped their cause more than mass arrests, house to house searches, bombing, torture and the general brutality of the military. The war with Algeria nearly broke France in the end, there was political unrest on a mass scale within the country and, towards the end of the war, French generals plotted to kill Da Gaulle and even hatched plans to drop an airborne division, stationed at the time in Algeria, on Paris in order to effect a putsch.

You are as much saying that the correct French answer would have been to allow for unfettered atrocious attacks on French civilians in the vicinity of an area where no popular FLN support exists and merely hope that such inaction would somehow diminish the FLN.

That seems, to me, to be more than just a bit naive and a hopelessly flawed policy (much in the way the world is outright displaying such inaction in Darfur as we muse over such tragedy).

As for a solution - certainly suspend U.S. control of Iraq, turning it over to the U.N or even better, the U.N. in conjunction with the Arab League. Strengthen international law in order to better pursue criminals like Ben Laden (and others who shall remain nameless!) and close down tax havens to prevent the flow of finance to terrorist groups. Begin the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from the Middle East. The intensification of military action in Iraq and elsewhere will only provoke more violence and instability worldwide.

I don't see the "insurgency" surrendering simply because some other agency (the UN), even with an "Arab" league stamp of approval, moves in and assumes "control"...necessarily with military force I might add.

My view is that such a withdrawal will produce more bloodletting between the various groups slaughtering their way to "control".

One side is striving to reduce worldwide Iraqi debt, rebuild/reconstruct basic shelter/energy requirements and provide some (yes, some) hope of an organized election process. Whether or not this can be done to everyone's satisfaction remains to be seen. Kidnapping and killing care workers dedicated to non-violence with malicious intent is the difference between the groups we are talking about here.

International law must be enforced at some point with more than "stop it or I'll say stop it again".

Furthermore, we should bear in mind that Margaret Hassan was also an Iraqi, albeit of foreign origin. We take note of her murder because she wasn't an Arab. If she had been, there would not be such an outcry in the West. Her death is a shocking outrage, but how much more so is the killing of children in Iraq by intense military action.

Please refer back to my original post:

originally posted by Ronin ~

Please don't give me any shit about the innocent Iraqis that have been killed and are still being killed on an almost daily basis as if I have no consideration for them equally...because I do and have fucking factored that fully into the pros and cons of my view.

Thanks.

[Darren]

Quote: Ronin
You are as much saying that the correct French answer would have been to allow for unfettered atrocious attacks on French civilians in the vicinity of an area where no popular FLN support exists and merely hope that such inaction would somehow diminish the FLN.

My view is that such a withdrawal will produce more bloodletting between the various groups slaughtering their way to "control".

One side is striving to reduce worldwide Iraqi debt, rebuild/reconstruct basic shelter/energy requirements and provide some (yes, some) hope of an organized election process. Whether or not this can be done to everyone's satisfaction remains to be seen. Kidnapping and killing care workers dedicated to non-violence with malicious intent is the difference between the groups we are talking about here.

International law must be enforced at some point with more than "stop it or I'll say stop it again".


Please don't give me any shit about the innocent Iraqis that have been killed and are still being killed on an almost daily basis as if I have no consideration for them equally...because I do and have fucking factored that fully into the pros and cons of my view.

Thanks.[/QUOTE]

Please note, the customary French military response entirely failed to prevent the attacks on French civilians by blindly targeting the nearest Algerians to hand and failing to prevent the actual killers from carrying out their work. In fact, more and more slaughter took place as a result of the methods I outlined above and the French were ultimately forced to abandon Algeria anyway - in a chaotic withdrawal - during which much more slaughter of supposed collaborators etc. took place. The reason for the war in the first place was the French colonial domination of Algeria. If they (the French government) had listened to reason in the beginning the slaughter would have been avoided.

The bloodletting you mention above is the result of the continued process of coalition warfare upon and in Iraq. That is why the coalition operations should be suspended and coalition forces replaced with other peacekeeping personnel.

I reiterate, such hostage taking/killing groups have arisen as a result of the American (and British in Margaret Hassan's case) attempts to dominate Iraq (and to profit from this control). The coalition is not attempting to rebuild Iraq. The humanitarian aid organizations (not the U.S or British governments) want to but are being prevented from doing so by the chaotic situation in Iraq which is a direct result of years of arial bombing, sanctions, last year's invasion and the actions of the U.S. military up to and including the present time. There is no "side" which wants to rebuild basic shelter/energy requirements, certainly none which includes the U.S gvmnt and military. Your blurring of the boundaries between aid agencies and the coalition on the one hand and the various Iraqi resistance groups on the other strikes me as being particularly ungrounded in reality.

International law was flouted by the invasion of Iraq, not strengthened by it. Enforcement of international law does not equate to U.S dominance of oil producing regions. Third world countries are the largest contributers to genuine peace keeping and policing efforts sanctioned by the U.N. This consists effectively of the enforcement of decisions taken by the U.N., the closest thing to an international law enforcing body we have. There is no reason why Arab countries, for example could not assist the Iraqis with peacekeeping and law enforcement. By removing the U.S presence, much of the need for this peacekeeping would be reduced anyway.

No offence intended, but your final (and initial) comment only shows the value of Arab lives in your factoring of the pros and cons - obviously not very high and certainly not equal to the lives of westerners in your estimation!

[Ronin]

Please note, the customary French military response entirely failed to prevent the attacks on French civilians by blindly targeting the nearest Algerians to hand and failing to prevent the actual killers from carrying out their work. In fact, more and more slaughter took place as a result of the methods I outlined above and the French were ultimately forced to abandon Algeria anyway - in a chaotic withdrawal - during which much more slaughter of supposed collaborators etc. took place. The reason for the war in the first place was the French colonial domination of Algeria. If they (the French government) had listened to reason in the beginning the slaughter would have been avoided.

Please note that inaction would not have magically produced any better results and that, in particular, the slaughter started with the action against French civilians by the FLN.

I also don't see where Algeria was the bastion of human rights under their own government.

So, unless you can show me where "peacekeeping" forces can actually "keep the peace" without military action to protect innocent civilians and promote human rights then we are merely arguing over semantics.

The bloodletting you mention above is the result of the continued process of coalition warfare upon and in Iraq. That is why the coalition operations should be suspended and coalition forces replaced with other peacekeeping personnel.

Again, it is my view that any personnel (UN or NATO) would still face the same "insurgent" behavior and not produce a different mindset.

It may make the rest of the world feel better...and that is why I would recommend inclusion of more countries in providing military support...however, the insurgency would continue to commit atrocities against civilians (aid workers included).

That is what makes them more of a problem than US forces.

I reiterate, such hostage taking/killing groups have arisen as a result of the American (and British in Margaret Hassan's case) attempts to dominate Iraq (and to profit from this control).

Note that such "killing groups" have been the standard in Iraq even prior to the current coalition presence.

It would take a great historical revisionist to imply otherwise...unless you devalue the worth of the kurds, sunnis and/or other political competition tortured, maimed and slaughtered over the years in Iraq to terrorize and repress any opposition.

The coalition is not attempting to rebuild Iraq.

Nonsense.

The humanitarian aid organizations (not the U.S or British governments) want to but are being prevented from doing so by the chaotic situation in Iraq which is a direct result of years of arial bombing, sanctions, last year's invasion and the actions of the U.S. military up to and including the present time.

CARE left because Margaret Hassan was kidnapped and the insurgency was operating freely.

More chaos would follow with absolutely no hope of stabilization if all military forces were to leave at this time.

You may disagree.

There is no "side" which wants to rebuild basic shelter/energy requirements, certainly none which includes the U.S gvmnt and military.

I disagree.

Your blurring of the boundaries between aid agencies and the coalition on the one hand and the various Iraqi resistance groups on the other strikes me as being particularly ungrounded in reality.

I find it rational and reasonable and firmly grounded in reality.

International law was flouted by the invasion of Iraq, not strengthened by it.

I agree (see my original post).

Enforcement of international law does not equate to U.S dominance of oil producing regions.

I agree.

Third world countries are the largest contributers to genuine peace keeping and policing efforts sanctioned by the U.N. This consists effectively of the enforcement of decisions taken by the U.N., the closest thing to an international law enforcing body we have.

I'd like you to elaborate with some evidence examples of this assertion.

There is no reason why Arab countries, for example could not assist the Iraqis with peacekeeping and law enforcement. By removing the U.S presence, much of the need for this peacekeeping would be reduced anyway.

I disagree. The history of infighting and violent power shifts (based on religion and ethnicity) would indicate otherwise.

No offence intended, but your final (and initial) comment only shows the value of Arab lives in your factoring of the pros and cons - obviously not very high and certainly not equal to the lives of westerners in your estimation!

No offense taken.

I do disagree and don't think that you have gained a sufficient amount of personal knowledge regarding my background and worldview as a humanist.

Thanks.

[Darren]

Please note, the customary French military response entirely failed to prevent the attacks on French civilians by blindly targeting the nearest Algerians to hand and failing to prevent the actual killers from carrying out their work. In fact, more and more slaughter took place as a result of the methods I outlined above and the French were ultimately forced to abandon Algeria anyway - in a chaotic withdrawal - during which much more slaughter of supposed collaborators etc. took place. The reason for the war in the first place was the French colonial domination of Algeria. If they (the French government) had listened to reason in the beginning the slaughter would have been avoided.

Please note that inaction would not have magically produced any better results and that, in particular, the slaughter started with the action against French civilians by the FLN.

I also don't see where Algeria was the bastion of human rights under their own government.

The problems began with the French failure to recognize that they either had to integrate Algeria fully as part of France or relinquish it as a colonial possession.
Also, the point is Algeria did not have its own government.


[QUOTE=Ronin]
So, unless you can show me where "peacekeeping" forces can actually "keep the peace" without military action to protect innocent civilians and promote human rights then we are merely arguing over semantics.[quote]

Cyprus - but we're talking about peacekeeping, not invasion and takeover. That really is the bottom line and it would make a world of difference in Iraq.
For the rest, of course you're entitled to your opinion

[Clutch Munny]

Ronin, you say you know you're being manipulated. And you say that you don't want to hear that this hostage is only "the final straw" because she's some sort of Westerner whereas thousands of Iraqi dead get no press time -- you say you've factored that all in.

So what do you want? "Intense military action" under any empirically plausible scenario (e.g., falling well beneath the claimed 8:1 troop ratio required to suppress insurgents) has nothing speaking in its favour as a solution. There is no reason to think that violence will breed anything but more hatred of foreigners and further violence; the extended families of those killed in Fallujah are no happier that their relatives were killed by Americans than if they'd been murdered by Saddam. It's a complete non-sequitur to reason from Hassan's death to the appropriateness of still more extremely violent a response.

If you just wanted to vent, fine. But there's exactly zero reason to think that the problem has been too little of the "Let's kick some Iraqi ass!" attitude.

[beyelzu]

for the love of all that's holy, darren, please take the time to format your posts properly, I would love to read them, but find them confusing.

[Ronin]

Ronin, you say you know you're being manipulated. And you say that you don't want to hear that this hostage is only "the final straw" because she's some sort of Westerner whereas thousands of Iraqi dead get no press time -- you say you've factored that all in.

So what do you want? "Intense military action" under any empirically plausible scenario (e.g., falling well beneath the claimed 8:1 troop ratio required to suppress insurgents) has nothing speaking in its favour as a solution.

I think "nothing speaking in its favour as a solution" is an extreme position to take.

I am of the opinion that at certain times it is necessary to bring about hope for elections and the reconstruction of an organized society.

This has been one such time.

I am continuously amazed at how many question the military action of the coalition, yet have so little to say regarding the "military action" (kidnapping and murder of civilians) performed by the "insurgence" and their own culpability in such murders.

Where is the horror and amazement at their transgressions...their collateral damage to innocent Iraqis?

Oh, that's right...they are somehow justified and noble defenders of freedom and human rights.

There is no reason to think that violence will breed anything but more hatred of foreigners and further violence; the extended families of those killed in Fallujah are no happier that their relatives were killed by Americans than if they'd been murdered by Saddam. It's a complete non-sequitur to reason from Hassan's death to the appropriateness of still more extremely violent a response.

I'll admit that Hassan's kidnapping and subsequent brutal murder by the "insurgence" was my own subjective line in the sand.

Perhaps everyone has their own...this has been mine.

If you just wanted to vent, fine.

Thanks.

But there's exactly zero reason to think that the problem has been too little of the "Let's kick some Iraqi ass!" attitude.

I don't class "Iraq ass" with "insurgency ass". I recognize the existence of moderates and intellectuals in the Iraqi population that do support intense military action in those area where the insurgence have been given too much free reign.

I support such action in this case.

[Clutch Munny]

Ronin, you say you know you're being manipulated. And you say that you don't want to hear that this hostage is only "the final straw" because she's some sort of Westerner whereas thousands of Iraqi dead get no press time -- you say you've factored that all in.

So what do you want? "Intense military action" under any empirically plausible scenario (e.g., falling well beneath the claimed 8:1 troop ratio required to suppress insurgents) has nothing speaking in its favour as a solution.

I think "nothing speaking in its favour as a solution" is an extreme position to take.

So what speaks in its favour? The propensity of violence to be cyclical and self-reinforcing is not controversial. What makes you think this will be the exception?

I am of the opinion that at certain times it is necessary to bring about hope for elections and the reconstruction of an organized society.

If there was any reason to think this would result, this remark would be relevant.

I am continuously amazed at how many question the military action of the coalition, yet have so little to say regarding the "military action" (kidnapping and murder of civilians) performed by the "insurgence" and their own culpability in such murders.

This is absurd. We agree that the kidnapping and murder of civilians is ghastly, unsupportable. The question is simple: Will "intense military action" lead to more of it or less of it? Will the consequences of the military action be better or worse -- in terms of lives lost, innocents injured, justice defiled -- than the status quo? Here's one datum: So far "intense military action" has itself killed thousands, injured thousands more, and coincided with the insurgent atrocities you mention. What reason is there to think that all's that's missing is more violence from the coalition?


Where is the horror and amazement at their transgressions...their collateral damage to innocent Iraqis?

Oh, that's right...they are somehow justified and noble defenders of freedom and human rights.

Hey, you don't have an argument, only outrage. Your problem. But you when you try to gloss your lack of rational substance with this moronic and offensive strawman, you only make the poverty of your views more apparent.


I'll admit that Hassan's kidnapping and subsequent brutal murder by the "insurgence" was my own subjective line in the sand.
...
Perhaps everyone has their own...this has been mine.
...
I support such action in this case.

Repeating an unargued assertion does not make it an argued assertion.

[Ronin]

So what speaks in its favour? The propensity of violence to be cyclical and self-reinforcing is not controversial. What makes you think this will be the exception?

There are plenty of examples where violence has been necessary to promote long-term stability.

Afghanistan is a most recent prime example.

originally posted by Ronin ~

I am of the opinion that at certain times it is necessary to bring about hope for elections and the reconstruction of an organized society.

posted by Clutch ~
If there was any reason to think this would result, this remark would be relevant.

Since there is a reason to think this would result, the statement is very relevant.

And since we are now locked in to presenting only our opinion regarding that particular aspect of the topic, further debate would only be redundant.

originally posted by Ronin ~

I am continuously amazed at how many question the military action of the coalition, yet have so little to say regarding the "military action" (kidnapping and murder of civilians) performed by the "insurgence" and their own culpability in such murders.

posted by Clutch ~

This is absurd. We agree that the kidnapping and murder of civilians is ghastly, unsupportable.

Well, when did we do that?

That is part of the overall problem I have been trying to expose both here and over at IIDB (in various threads).

There are few to no threads on holding the "insurgency" directly culpable for their own actions. When it is addressed at all it is usually framed in a way that they are justified due to the general theme that "America" is the great evil seeking to impose its nasty values on their culture.

The question is simple: Will "intense military action" lead to more of it or less of it?

Eventually...less of it, in my view (reference Afghanistan).

Will the consequences of the military action be better or worse -- in terms of lives lost, innocents injured, justice defiled -- than the status quo?

Depending on what amount of time you are talking about (an element frequently ignored)...better, in my view.

Here's one datum: So far "intense military action" has itself killed thousands, injured thousands more, and coincided with the insurgent atrocities you mention. What reason is there to think that all's that's missing is more violence from the coalition?

The atrocities I mentioned were occurring prior to the current military action in Fallujah.

Undeterred, the insurgency were able to communicate and receive support. Those lines have been removed along with weapons and some of the insurgents themselves.

Is the "intense military action" committed by the insurgence not open to the same critique so often expressed upon the coalition?

originally posted by Ronin ~

Where is the horror and amazement at their transgressions...their collateral damage to innocent Iraqis?

Oh, that's right...they are somehow justified and noble defenders of freedom and human rights.

posted by Clutch ~

Hey, you don't have an argument, only outrage. Your problem. But you when you try to gloss your lack of rational substance with this moronic and offensive strawman, you only make the poverty of your views more apparent.

If you don't believe that they are justified and noble defenders of freedom and human rights...I'd sure like to see it expressed more often.

If not, then it is more than reasonable for me to gather that all of the offense at coalition military action without equally expressed offense on the part of people who kidnap and murder aid workers must mean that the insurgency is justified in committing such acts.

I'll ask you flat out:

Are the insurgents justified in kidnapping and murdering foreign contract workers and aid workers, bombing Iraqi public police stations, or open civilian areas where coalition soldiers are present, as a part of their cause to rid Iraq of any foreign military representation?

originally posted by Ronin ~


I'll admit that Hassan's kidnapping and subsequent brutal murder by the "insurgence" was my own subjective line in the sand.
...
Perhaps everyone has their own...this has been mine.
...
I support such action in this case.

Repeating an unargued assertion does not make it an argued assertion.

I do not require it to be argued, Clutch...I am merely restating my own expressed opinion.

Thanks.

[Clutch Munny]

If you don't believe that they are justified and noble defenders of freedom and human rights...I'd sure like to see it expressed more often.

If not, then it is more than reasonable for me to gather that all of the offense at coalition military action without equally expressed offense on the part of people who kidnap and murder aid workers must mean that the insurgency is justified in committing such acts.

Ronin, are you really this fucking stupid?

I do not require it to be argued, Clutch...I am merely restating my own expressed opinion.

Yes, that's incandescently clear. If you just wanted to vent, to glory in being mad, you should have entered primal scream therapy. Perhaps you could express yourself via interpretive dance, instead... or by some other means that manages not to use the fucking dumbest and mean-spirited ways to depict those who disagree.

[Darren]

Ronin,
you wrote this with reference to inter-ethnic and political conflict in Iraq previous to the first Gulf war:


(referring to violent conflict being the norm in Iraq prior to 1990)



It would take a great historical revisionist to imply otherwise...unless you devalue the worth of the kurds, sunnis and/or other political competition tortured, maimed and slaughtered over the years in Iraq to terrorize and repress any opposition.



I would like to make two points regarding your assertion here:

My first point is a bit of nitpicking - I think you'll find it was Shi'a rather than Sunni muslims who formed a serious political opposition to the Hussein regime (having religious affiliation with the enemy Iran) and were thus oppressed.

My second point is that most of the violence you refer to occurred at a time when Saddam Hussein was the ally of the West and in particular the darling of the U.S.A. due to his opposition to (Shi'a fundamentalist) Iran.
This entailed approvisionment of arms etc. from various Western countries. The situation in Iran, which was seen as a justification for support for Hussein up to the end of the eighties, arose from the U.S. supported overthrow of democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh (for daring to nationalise Iran's oil industry) and his replacement with the puppet dictator Shah. With full U.S. support the Iranian political left was brutally suppressed under the unpopular Shah, leaving a socio-political vaccuum which was filled (to the immense surprise of everyone including the U.S. gvmnt) by the religious revolution of 1979.
In short, if the U.S. would stop setting up and supporting puppet dictators in the Middle East (and elsewhere) who are put there simply because they will allow the U.S. to exploit their oil reserves, much of the trouble you refer to (which would not have arisen to such a degree in the first place without such meddling) might be given a chance at peaceful resolution in the future.
The U.S. activity in Iraq at the moment encourages division (divide and rule strategy example number one - Kurdistan in the North of Iraq) as well as violent opposition to untrammelled economic exploitation of the country's resources. This leaves little room for resolution of Iraq's post-colonial legacy of problems.



Furthermore, in the same post you requested some info further to one of my claims in a previous post:




Third world countries are the largest contributers to genuine peace keeping and policing efforts sanctioned by the U.N. This consists effectively of the enforcement of decisions taken by the U.N., the closest thing to an international law enforcing body we have.

I'd like you to elaborate with some evidence examples of this assertion.





Here is some evidence as requested - I have taken these data from the New Internationalist magazine May 2004 edition. They in turn are quoting the United Nations monthly summary of contributers for January 2004 .

These are the top twelve contributers to U.N. peacekeeping operations at the beginning of 2004 with rough figures for the number of personnel each country was supplying at the time:

Pakistan 7000
Bangladesh 6000+
Nigeria 3000+
India 3000
Ghana 2000+
Nepal 2000+
Uraguay 2000
Jordan 2000
Kenya 2000
South Africa 1000+
Ukraine 1000+
Ethiopia 1000

As you can see, the majority of these countries are unquestionably in the (admittedly of dubious value) "third world" category.


Convinced yet?

[Ronin]

My first point is a bit of nitpicking - I think you'll find it was Shi'a rather than Sunni muslims who formed a serious political opposition to the Hussein regime (having religious affiliation with the enemy Iran) and were thus oppressed.

I appreciate the nitpick, Darren, thanks...I’ve had a bit of a disjointed few weeks irl and obviously got Sunni mixed with Shi’a.

The actual issue of political oppression (via torture and maiming) you fail to address directly, I note. Which continues to be the actual issue I am addressing in the context of the OP.

With that settled:

My second point is that most of the violence you refer to occurred at a time when Saddam Hussein was the ally of the West and in particular the darling of the U.S.A. due to his opposition to (Shi'a fundamentalist) Iran.
This entailed approvisionment of arms etc. from various Western countries. The situation in Iran, which was seen as a justification for support for Hussein up to the end of the eighties, arose from the U.S. supported overthrow of democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh (for daring to nationalise Iran's oil industry) and his replacement with the puppet dictator Shah. With full U.S. support the Iranian political left was brutally suppressed under the unpopular Shah, leaving a socio-political vaccuum which was filled (to the immense surprise of everyone including the U.S. gvmnt) by the religious revolution of 1979.

In short, if the U.S. would stop setting up and supporting puppet dictators in the Middle East (and elsewhere) who are put there simply because they will allow the U.S. to exploit their oil reserves, much of the trouble you refer to (which would not have arisen to such a degree in the first place without such meddling) might be given a chance at peaceful resolution in the future.

Here you are making the mistake of conflating my view (that military action is necessary now) with the obvious errors of the current and past official U.S. "diplomatic" policy in the Middle East.

My OP already addressed that I do not agree with such policies but still understand the need for military intervention in this case to suppress the insurgency.

The U.S. activity in Iraq at the moment encourages division (divide and rule strategy example number one - Kurdistan in the North of Iraq) as well as violent opposition to untrammelled economic exploitation of the country's resources. This leaves little room for resolution of Iraq's post-colonial legacy of problems.

I disagree.

I think that the current activity will sufficiently destabilize the incorrect “insurgent” actions of kidnapping civilians, aid workers and bombing public arenas (causing severe collateral damage to innocent lives, universally unlamented by you and Clutch)...thus increasing the chances of reconstruction of basic services, Iraqi security and multi-lateral (including Arab) support for organized elections.


Here is some evidence as requested - I have taken these data from the New Internationalist magazine May 2004 edition. They in turn are quoting the United Nations monthly summary of contributers for January 2004 .

These are the top twelve contributers to U.N. peacekeeping operations at the beginning of 2004 with rough figures for the number of personnel each country was supplying at the time:

Pakistan 7000
Bangladesh 6000+
Nigeria 3000+
India 3000
Ghana 2000+
Nepal 2000+
Uraguay 2000
Jordan 2000
Kenya 2000
South Africa 1000+
Ukraine 1000+
Ethiopia 1000

As you can see, the majority of these countries are unquestionably in the (admittedly of dubious value) "third world" category.


Convinced yet?

Thank you for that very informative and enlightening list. I greatly appreciate the manner in which it is presented and that it really does add something new to my view.

Here is something I think may also provide some common ground on which to build understanding between us:

Third World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_world)

[Petra]

I would just like to interject that I am among those that have screamed blue murder in my outrage at the Bush admin and PNAC's swift manipulation of opportunity as presented by the horrors of Sept 9, 2001.

As one of the people incriminated in this thread (due to my uncharacteristic silence in this, I guess) as being an appeaser to those who murdered Margaret Hassan, I would like to state that I am not. And I believe that very, very few of us are pardoners of anyone that would do this.

Personally, I have become so sickened by humanity at this point, and can see no long term good in any damn thing that now happens in that godforsaken place at this godforsaken time. The lunatics are now in charge of the asylum, extremists and psychopaths - both sides; some wearing headscarfs, some in uniform, some garbed in religious robes or business suits - are given the mainstage. History certainly hasn't taught them anything. My brain just can't cope with it anymore. :(

It's all so fucked up. I'm completely at a loss as to what would be the most humane, efficient, and effective method of bringing any kind of short and/or long term halt and resolution to this insane madness. :(

[Darren]

[QUOTE=Ronin]
The actual issue of political oppression (via torture and maiming) you fail to address directly, I note. Which continues to be the actual issue I am addressing in the context of the OP.


I think that the current activity will sufficiently destabilize the incorrect “insurgent” actions of kidnapping civilians, aid workers and bombing public arenas (causing severe collateral damage to innocent lives, universally unlamented by you and Clutch)...thus increasing the chances of reconstruction of basic services, Iraqi security and multi-lateral (including Arab) support for organized elections.

[quote/]

Ronin,

in the two paragraphs above you essentially reiterate your belief that intensified military action on the part of the coalition will lead to a lessening of the destruction (in all its forms including murder, torture etc.) occurring in Iraq at present.

The object of my first post regarding the Algerian example was to show how such intensified military action (your own words in your initial post) on the part of foreign countries with a clear and unilateral interest in controlling the invaded country results in increased recruitment to active opposition/terror groups. I am certainly not condoning the murderous actions on the part of the hostage takers, I already described Margaret hassan's death as a "shocking outrage" but at the same time the invasion and destruction of e.g. Falloujah underway at the present moment (a clear example of intensified military action) is unlikely to stem the tide of Iraqi resentment and resistance, in fact, as history has shown, the opposite is likely to be the case. furthermore, it has resulted in large scale violence being heaped on innocent iraqi civilians. The demonstration of this likelihood by historical comparison has been my main contribution to the debate.

Others, particularly Farren, have shown in their posts the overwhelming importance of the question of which organization is to oversee any attempts at the reconstruction of Iraq. They have also shown how the will of the Iraqi people themselves should be taken into account. The Iraqi people are not fools, they know why the U.S.A. has invaded their country and the majority clearly do not want the U.S. to run the show for their (the U.S.'s) own benefit.
On the other hand, a disinterested (in the sense of lacking ulterior geopolitical profit based motives) party such as the U.N. providing military and other peacekeeping personnel drawn from various countries is far more likely to fall in line with the will of the Iraqis themselves and to lessen support for hard line radical terror groups. These last will not disappear by magic of course, but attempting to stamp them out with moves such as the war on Falloujah with its heavy civilian casualties and massive population displacement, house to house searches and so on, can only be counter productive to peace in Iraq. The U.S. should content itself with the provision of finance for the reconstruction of Iraq, instead of parcelling out lucrative contracts to mainly U.S. based corporations for reconstruction as a profit generating activity. A prime example of this is the heavy involvement of Haliburton's in Iraq. what is important is how the Iraqis themselves view the situation. Falloujah will not endear the U.S. to many in Iraq, or indeed the Middle East.

Thanks for the link to the definition of the "third world". It does seem less and less valid as a useful term in these post cold war days of uneven development.


Regarding a comment you made in response to a post by Clutch about military action leading to long term stability in Afghanistan:
this is patently false. All serious reports from Afghanistan show that, with the exception of Kabul, the country is fracturing into numerous fiefdoms under the control of local warlords financing their little worlds by opium culture and guaranteeing them with small arms. These fiefdoms differ in little respect to the Taliban, with the exception that they appear to offer even less security and stability to Afghans on the whole. As for the position of women, according to reports from women's groups within Afghanistan, little has improved even in Kabul, let alone the rest of the country. The Northern Alliance and the Taliban differed on political and ethnic, rather than religious grounds. Also, the taliban are regrouping in the fluid border region between Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan. Stability is very far from being the norm in Afghanistan, and the future is not bright.

[Clutch Munny]

the incorrect “insurgent” actions of kidnapping civilians, aid workers and bombing public arenas (causing severe collateral damage to innocent lives, universally unlamented by you and Clutch)


I wrote several brief remarks about this statement, before realizing that it spoke for itself.

[Clutch Munny]

As one of the people incriminated in this thread (due to my uncharacteristic silence in this, I guess) as being an appeaser to those who murdered Margaret Hassan, I would like to state that I am not.


For what it's worth -- maybe nothing! -- I'm sorry to think that you felt pressured to say as much in this context. Why should you feel compelled to a profession of innocence, in the face of such bizarrely self-righteousness accusations and delirious dumb-fuckery?

I did so myself, against my better judgement; it was a mistake. I indulged Ronin by assuring him that "We agree that the kidnapping and murder of civilians is ghastly, unsupportable". As can be read in the thread, this notably clear and explicit statement did not penetrate Ronin's pathology; it seems probable that nothing will.

The point I'm trying to make (awkwardly, no doubt) is that there's a crucial principle at stake, one explicitly denied by the "If you're not with us you're against us" mindset in all its forms. Of course there's nothing wrong, and a good deal right, with decrying violent campaigns of all sorts, if that's what you feel is important to say. But I don't think any of us should indulge the Bush doctrine that only explicitly rejecting X absolves you of supporting X.

It's one thing to volunteer to a friend, or even to a roomful of casual acquaintances, that you're not and never have been a Communist. But when you're told you must state this, on pain of being branded a Communist, the only reasonable answer is, "Fuck off, you self-righteous twit."

[beyelzu]

As one of the people incriminated in this thread (due to my uncharacteristic silence in this, I guess) as being an appeaser to those who murdered Margaret Hassan, I would like to state that I am not.


For what it's worth -- maybe nothing! -- I'm sorry to think that you felt pressured to say as much in this context. Why should you feel compelled to a profession of innocence, in the face of such bizarrely self-righteousness accusations and delirious dumb-fuckery?

I did so myself, against my better judgement; it was a mistake. I indulged Ronin by assuring him that "We agree that the kidnapping and murder of civilians is ghastly, unsupportable". As can be read in the thread, this notably clear and explicit statement did not penetrate Ronin's pathology; it seems probable that nothing will.

The point I'm trying to make (awkwardly, no doubt) is that there's a crucial principle at stake, one explicitly denied by the "If you're not with us you're against us" mindset in all its forms. Of course there's nothing wrong, and a good deal right, with decrying violent campaigns of all sorts, if that's what you feel is important to say. But I don't think any of us should indulge the Bush doctrine that only explicitly rejecting X absolves you of supporting X.

It's one thing to volunteer to a friend, or even to a roomful of casual acquaintances, that you're not and never have been a Communist. But when you're told you must state this, on pain of being branded a Communist, the only reasonable answer is, "Fuck off, you self-righteous twit."


on the other hand, if you go around bitching about capitalism and all of its evils maybe you should be asked if you are a communist.

[beyelzu]

I would just like to interject that I am among those that have screamed blue murder in my outrage at the Bush admin and PNAC's swift manipulation of opportunity as presented by the horrors of Sept 9, 2001.

As one of the people incriminated in this thread (due to my uncharacteristic silence in this, I guess) as being an appeaser to those who murdered Margaret Hassan, I would like to state that I am not. And I believe that very, very few of us are pardoners of anyone that would do this.

Personally, I have become so sickened by humanity at this point, and can see no long term good in any damn thing that now happens in that godforsaken place at this godforsaken time. The lunatics are now in charge of the asylum, extremists and psychopaths - both sides; some wearing headscarfs, some in uniform, some garbed in religious robes or business suits - are given the mainstage. History certainly hasn't taught them anything. My brain just can't cope with it anymore. :(

It's all so fucked up. I'm completely at a loss as to what would be the most humane, efficient, and effective method of bringing any kind of short and/or long term halt and resolution to this insane madness. :(
I agree with you,

but I think that military action is necessary for reconstruction to take place in Iraq. No viable alternative to military action has been offerred in my opinion.

[livius drusus]

on the other hand, if you go around bitching about capitalism and all of its evils maybe you should be asked if you are a communist.

The analogy doesn't stretch that far here, bey. Clutch already stated for the record that the thinks murder and kidnapping is unsupportable. I don't understand why that has to be in question just because he or anyone else suspects that intensified military action will not end the murder and kidnapping.

Are you suggesting that anyone who makes that argument should be treated with de facto suspicion of supporting the means and ends of the insurgency?

[Adam]

If not, then it is more than reasonable for me to gather that all of the offense at coalition military action without equally expressed offense on the part of people who kidnap and murder aid workers must mean that the insurgency is justified in committing such acts.

I can only speak for myself here, but there are several reasons why I personally find myself expressing more disapproval (not that this means I feel more disapproval, mind you) for US/coalition actions than for insurgent actions. In rough order of signifigance:

First and foremost, when the actions are committed by my own government, I theoretically have a voice in approving or disapproving them. In other words, US policy is, to some extent, my policy, while "insurgent policy" is not, so I have a greater interest in influencing, and a greater ability to influence the former.

Second, I tend to hold my own government to a higher standard than that of third world religious zealots. Insane fundamentalists slaughter innocents? Dog bites man. Bastion of freedom and democracy slaughters innocents? Man bites dog. Well, it should be, even if it doesn't seem to be.

Third, I have a pragmatic understanding that we are pursuing, to a great extent, different goals than the opposition. Escalating violence serves their ends, not ours.

Fourth, those around me tend to take it as a given that, say, kidnapping and executing aid workers is an outrage. I find far fewer people in my daily life who are willing to look at the actions of their own country without bias and admit that, yeah, a lot of what we do is also outrageous. In other words, I don't need to make a case for what is already widely accepted.

[Adam]

No viable alternative to military action has been offerred in my opinion.

But what evidence tells you that military action is, itself, a viable solution?

[beyelzu]

on the other hand, if you go around bitching about capitalism and all of its evils maybe you should be asked if you are a communist.

The analogy doesn't stretch that far here, bey. Clutch already stated for the record that the thinks murder and kidnapping is unsupportable. I don't understand why that has to be in question just because he or anyone else suspects that intensified military action will not end the murder and kidnapping.

Are you suggesting that anyone who makes that argument should be treated with de facto suspicion of supporting the means and ends of the insurgency?
no, it just seems to me that many of the detractors of military action in iraq do not in fact condemn the insurgents. Even if they do, they offer no viable alternative; the lack of viable alternative was what I was trying to point out. If you just bitch about the actions then what are you supporting exactly.

all yous in the above paragraph are of the indefinite variety.

[beyelzu]

No viable alternative to military action has been offerred in my opinion.

But what evidence tells you that military action is, itself, a viable solution?
well, I might be a dipshit, but it seems to me that it is hard to rebuild a bridge much less most of the infrastructure of a country when people are kidnapping the workers and blowing shit up. It seems to follow that military presence is required to keep the peace so to speak and protect workers.

[Clutch Munny]

on the other hand, if you go around bitching about capitalism and all of its evils maybe you should be asked if you are a communist.

1) Why?

2) What liv said.

[Clutch Munny]

No viable alternative to military action has been offerred in my opinion.

But what evidence tells you that military action is, itself, a viable solution?
well, I might be a dipshit, but it seems to me that it is hard to rebuild a bridge much less most of the infrastructure of a country when people are kidnapping the workers and blowing shit up. It seems to follow that military presence is required to keep the peace so to speak and protect workers.

It does not follow. "Military presence" is uselessly vague. It may be that there are troop levels that would suffice to simply impose order. (It may not, too.) But those troop levels are radically beyond any realistic, politically feasible, target for the coalition. (Again, military strategists cite 8:1 as the combatant troop superiority needed to suppress insurgents; even that figure is optimistic when a non-trivial number of the insurgents are willing to die.) So calling for greater military action is out of touch with reality.

Below those levels, there is no reason to expect anything other than what we've already got: escalations of coalition aggression met with escalations of insurgent violence. Entrenchment of anti-coalition attitudes among the populace seem inevitable in any case.

[Petra]

As one of the people incriminated in this thread (due to my uncharacteristic silence in this, I guess) as being an appeaser to those who murdered Margaret Hassan, I would like to state that I am not.


For what it's worth -- maybe nothing! -- I'm sorry to think that you felt pressured to say as much in this context. Why should you feel compelled to a profession of innocence, in the face of such bizarrely self-righteousness accusations and delirious dumb-fuckery?

A mood I was in, I guess. I have been avoiding getting into this topic, because I'd become so saturated with bad news over the last year or so, and I just need to smell the flowers and bask in some sunshine for awhile, for the sake of my own mental health.

I didn't feel pressured; just sad as I browsed this topic, and simply wanted to state that I do not condone the actions of the insurgents. I am disgusted by both sides, and the longer it goes on the less human everyone is. And I honestly do not know how to fix it. I can offer no viable alternatives. So much is past the point of no return. :sadcheer:

[Farren]

Ronin,

I don't want to do a line item reply to your posts but what strikes me as immediately apparent is that Darren questioned not efforts to bring about peace but the manner and intensity of those efforts. He quite explicitly described a situation in Algeria where military action was enraged, showed little foresight, picked its targets poorly and resulted in greater misery than peace, as an analogy for Iraq.

By way of reply you appear to have repeatedly mischaracterised his arguments as promoting simple inaction when the argument is altogether more subtle than that.

Similarly Beyelzu you lament the lack of alternatives offered when I offered one on the first page of this thread.

[Darren]

A mood I was in, I guess. I have been avoiding getting into this topic, because I'd become so saturated with bad news over the last year or so, and I just need to smell the flowers and bask in some sunshine for awhile, for the sake of my own mental health.


I don't blame you, it's true that constant worrying over what you cannot personally do much about is devastating to the said mental health.



I didn't feel pressured; just sad as I browsed this topic, and simply wanted to state that I do not condone the actions of the insurgents. I am disgusted by both sides, and the longer it goes on the less human everyone is. And I honestly do not know how to fix it. I can offer no viable alternatives. So much is past the point of no return. :sadcheer:



As for a viable alternative, ask yourself why, for instance, the French resistance attacked German forces occupying their country in the nineteen forties but failed to do the same to Allied forces, who progressively replaced the German forces as the dominant power in France post june 1944. Could it be that they distinguished between the motives of the Germans and those of the Allies?
The point is that Iraqi resistance is a resistance movement (albeit made up of disparate parties) against an invading force. The Islamic dimension is a useful rallying point but it is not at the heart of the resistance itself, the heart of the resistance is nationalistic and patriotic. Removing the invading force and bringing in the U.N. (and the Arab League) should convince the majority of Iraqis that there is no neo-colonialism going on. Leaving the U.S. in control of things will convince millions of people worldwide (not just the Iraqis) that America is pursuing a neo-colonial agenda.
Moreover, quitting such crass military operations as the assault on Falloujah (do none of you know what's been going on there?) would cut down recruitment to hard-line Islamic (wahabiite inspired) extremist terror groups and be a step on the road to isolating such movements from any popular support both in and outside Iraq.

Look at it this way, television news agencies around the world, including the highly influential Al-Jazeera, are showing footage (from Iraq) of civilian casualties, brutal harassment of civilians (including small children) both directly and indirectly by coalition forces, heavy bombardment of residential areas, civilians fleeing their homes in terror, (infra-red nighttime footage of) unarmed men being taken out by Apache gunships, marines shooting unarmed wounded men lying prone on the floor, torture sessions and so on and so forth. Maybe some people aren't getting this picture in the U.S. and elsewhere. Maybe some people just don't want to believe that American (and British) forces are behaving like Nazis - but, crucially, the Islamic world is getting this picture.
I could go on and on about serious journalistic filming of U.S. tanks targeting and killing journalists in the Palestine Hotel, U.S. troops forcing families out of their homes - forcing, at gunpoint, little children of not more than ten years old to kneel on the ground, crying, with their hands behind their heads. The resistance in Iraq is brutal because the taking and holding of Iraq by the coalition has been, and continues to be, brutal. The first (the resistance) is a reaction to the second (the invasion). And there are internationally organized religious zealots who can and will take advantage of the situation to boost their support base and justify their screwed up vision of Islam.
The only way to stop the situation from degrading further is to suspend the coalition operations in Iraq and commence an orderly withdrawal of the latter's forces, with their replacement where necessary by blue berets (troops under direct U.N. mandated control) drawn from disinterested (i.e. geopolitically disinterested) countries from around the world.
The situation is bad, and the longer it takes to get this U.S. led coalition out of Iraq, the worse the situation will become - both locally and globally. The U.S. presence in Iraq (and the Middle East in general) is not a viable solution, it is the problem.

Just one more point, although our anglophone media conglomerates just adore pictures of guys in balaclavas covered with golden Koranic scripts and dripping with weapons, the Iraqi resistance is not reductible to these sound-bite friendly images.

Sorry, I lied at the start of that last paragraph, but I just wanted to assure you that I, personally, would prefer to see a more Ghandi-esque form of resistance. But then, I'm not an Iraqi, I'm not in Iraq and I don't have to live in somewhere like Falloujah. I'm British (Scottish really) and I can only deplore my country's part in this infamy and abhor Tony B.liar with his head so far up Bush's larger intestine that not even his feet are left sticking out.

[Dingfod]

I'm afraid it may be too late for the US to win hearts and minds now. The Muslim rallying cry will be much like the Texian insurgent's of the 1830s, "Remember the Alamo!", "Remember Fallujah!" or whatever the Arabic equivalent would be.

[Ronin]

Ronin,

I don't want to do a line item reply to your posts but what strikes me as immediately apparent is that Darren questioned not efforts to bring about peace but the manner and intensity of those efforts. He quite explicitly described a situation in Algeria where military action was enraged, showed little foresight, picked its targets poorly and resulted in greater misery than peace, as an analogy for Iraq.

By way of reply you appear to have repeatedly mischaracterised his arguments as promoting simple inaction when the argument is altogether more subtle than that.

Really?

Please elaborate on the subtlety I seemed to have missed...I am hopeful that inaction coupled with some magic "subtleness" will provide enlightenment to the huddled innocent who were and are being murdered by such clever rebels.

Similarly Beyelzu you lament the lack of alternatives offered when I offered one on the first page of this thread.

Let's look back and see what you imply that we've missed:

originally posted by Farren ~

You can, for instance, throw your support behind the idea that the US should relinquish control of peacekeeping activities and place its forces in Iraq under UN control. Bear in mind quite a number of UN members initially offered assistance conditional on UN control, a condition Bush and his evil cabal refused to even consider. More recently the US has refused to allow a force not under US control to protect UN staff in Iraq.

later posted by Darren ~

Regarding a comment you made in response to a post by Clutch about military action leading to long term stability in Afghanistan:

this is patently false. All serious reports from Afghanistan show that, with the exception of Kabul, the country is fracturing into numerous fiefdoms under the control of local warlords financing their little worlds by opium culture and guaranteeing them with small arms. These fiefdoms differ in little respect to the Taliban, with the exception that they appear to offer even less security and stability to Afghans on the whole. As for the position of women, according to reports from women's groups within Afghanistan, little has improved even in Kabul, let alone the rest of the country. The Northern Alliance and the Taliban differed on political and ethnic, rather than religious grounds. Also, the taliban are regrouping in the fluid border region between Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan. Stability is very far from being the norm in Afghanistan, and the future is not bright.

Well, which is it?

Is the UN or NATO/International Security Assistance Force (aka non-unilaterally American) presence and support the answer to these problems or not?

...

So, you see, I realize that there is this perpetual loop of devaluing any military action no matter what the cause proposed (mine being the need to prevent those brutal violations that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have been reporting on for years and use military action to deplete the “insurgence” with superior force so that reconstruction and orderly elections can take place).

I have provided several links here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=81110&page=2&highlight=iraq) (and another one here at FF that I am honestly too tired to find right now) that provide a different story. I have also referenced the reconstruction efforts of Bechtel to include the blatant fact that reconstruction is taking place amidst the chaos by some very brave Iraqi people.

For the most part, though, I have grown very disappointed in many here that continue to assume that I effortlessly jumped to the conclusion that intense military action is necessary...as if I had not spent a great deal of time and research considering every single aspect that has been broached by the likes of every participant in this thread.

My advice to those particular members is for them to find some real neocon republicans to take out their pent up frustrations and not the straw-man you have made of me and my views.

In closing, one really only need consider oneself a human being without nationality to see where real need for military action (aka "Force") has been necessary after all talk has failed to secure and protect others so that they can live in peace.

[Farren]

Ronin,

I don't want to do a line item reply to your posts but what strikes me as immediately apparent is that Darren questioned not efforts to bring about peace but the manner and intensity of those efforts. He quite explicitly described a situation in Algeria where military action was enraged, showed little foresight, picked its targets poorly and resulted in greater misery than peace, as an analogy for Iraq.

By way of reply you appear to have repeatedly mischaracterised his arguments as promoting simple inaction when the argument is altogether more subtle than that.

Really?

Please elaborate on the subtlety I seemed to have missed...I am hopeful that inaction coupled with some magic "subtleness" will provide enlightenment to the huddled innocent who were and are being murdered by such clever rebels.



OK...

The subtle distinction is that Darren and myself argued not for inaction but for altogether different action, undertaken by different players, with different motives and different tactics. So mischaracterising such a position as arguing for inaction is, um... mischaracterisation.

Clear enough?



Similarly Beyelzu you lament the lack of alternatives offered when I offered one on the first page of this thread.

Let's look back and see what you imply that we've missed:

originally posted by Farren ~

You can, for instance, throw your support behind the idea that the US should relinquish control of peacekeeping activities and place its forces in Iraq under UN control. Bear in mind quite a number of UN members initially offered assistance conditional on UN control, a condition Bush and his evil cabal refused to even consider. More recently the US has refused to allow a force not under US control to protect UN staff in Iraq.

later posted by Darren ~

Regarding a comment you made in response to a post by Clutch about military action leading to long term stability in Afghanistan:

this is patently false. All serious reports from Afghanistan show that, with the exception of Kabul, the country is fracturing into numerous fiefdoms under the control of local warlords financing their little worlds by opium culture and guaranteeing them with small arms. These fiefdoms differ in little respect to the Taliban, with the exception that they appear to offer even less security and stability to Afghans on the whole. As for the position of women, according to reports from women's groups within Afghanistan, little has improved even in Kabul, let alone the rest of the country. The Northern Alliance and the Taliban differed on political and ethnic, rather than religious grounds. Also, the taliban are regrouping in the fluid border region between Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan. Stability is very far from being the norm in Afghanistan, and the future is not bright.

Well, which is it?

Is the UN or NATO/International Security Assistance Force (aka non-unilaterally American) presence and support the answer to these problems or not?

...



Either. I'm not the final word on the topic and Darren and I are not part of some brotherhood with a single agenda. Conflating our suggestions doesn't demonstrate anything useful unless there's a inferred subtext I'm missing in which case could you explicitly articulate it? We're two different people with similar but differing opinions.

We do concur, however, that the US is doing a piss-poor job of winning the peace and is even probably a cause of greater instability. The self-evident conclusion is that some other body should oversee peacekeeping in Iraq.

I'm not sure how your response addresses what I wrote to Beyelzu other than to corroborate the claim that alternatives have demonstrably been offered in light of Beyelzu lamenting the lack of said.


So, you see, I realize that there is this perpetual loop of devaluing any military action no matter what the cause proposed (mine being the need to prevent those brutal violations that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have been reporting on for years and use military action to deplete the “insurgence” with superior force so that reconstruction and orderly elections can take place).


Ronin, you're being uncharacteristically closed to outside input. I fail to see how you could arrive at the above conclusion based on the suggestions on this thread. Suggesting alternative military peacekeeping arrangements is not equivalent to advocating an end to all military action.


I have provided several links here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=81110&page=2&highlight=iraq) (and another one here at FF that I am honestly too tired to find right now) that provide a different story. I have also referenced the reconstruction efforts of Bechtel to include the blatant fact that reconstruction is taking place amidst the chaos by some very brave Iraqi people.


Its important to disentangle issues here. I'm certainly convinced that reconstruction efforts have taken place. Many of them, as evidenced by the chaos of the provisional authorities books and the Pentagons recent refusal to pay up to 15% of their Halliburton bill based on auditors reports, are mired in corruption and inefficiency. But they are taking place.

This does not, however, vindicate horribly mismanaged military efforts which result in excessive and unecessary loss of innocent life and stimulate the very resistance that thwarts many reconstruction efforts, both directly and indirectly (for instance, via reconstruction funds being diverted to security as was recently the case).


For the most part, though, I have grown very disappointed in many here that continue to assume that I effortlessly jumped to the conclusion that intense military action is necessary...as if I had not spent a great deal of time and research considering every single aspect that has been broached by the likes of every participant in this thread.

My advice to those particular members is for them to find some real neocon republicans to take out their pent up frustrations and not the straw-man you have made of me and my views.

In closing, one really only need consider oneself a human being without nationality to see where real need for military action (aka "Force") has been necessary after all talk has failed to secure and protect others so that they can live in peace.

Ronin, with respect, its curious that you accuse others here of erecting strawmen when in the first paragraph of your post you imply -

.I am hopeful that inaction coupled with some magic "subtleness" will provide enlightenment to the huddled innocent who were and are being murdered by such clever rebels.

- that you indeed believe inaction is being advocated when it evidently has not. I certainly never accused you of being a neocon. In fact, from many other threads I know that we share a great many views that would disqualify you from being said.

I think you're being a little oversensitive. How you make the leap from an assertion that you've mischaracterised someones view to having the label "neocon" thrust on you is a mystery to me.

[beyelzu]

I'm not sure how your response addresses what I wrote to Beyelzu other than to corroborate the claim that alternatives have demonstrably been offered in light of Beyelzu lamenting the lack of said.

shit, this must be some sort of cultural difference, cuz I dont think waiving the magic un peacekeeping wand is actually a viable alternative.


This does not, however, vindicate horribly mismanaged military efforts which result in excessive and unecessary loss of innocent life and stimulate the very resistance that thwarts many reconstruction efforts, both directly and indirectly (for instance, via reconstruction funds being diverted to security as was recently the case).
I suppose that the morally correct veiw is that even one civillian death is excessive. I dont think it works that way in the real world though. But I would like some proof that the us is engaging in unnecessary violence or misdirected violence. Please explain what amoung of life loss would be acceptable and not excessive.

[Farren]

I anticipated that someone would nitpick the use of the word excessive and have a fairly simple measure. If there are reasonable grounds for believing that an alternative solution would result in the loss of less inncoent life for the same or better results, then the current rate of loss of innocent life is excessive.

Simple.

Darren and myself have given quite a number of reasons why there are reasonable grounds for believing such a thing, but I'll list (and in some cases re-iterate) some of them:

1. There are other, more multilateral bodies with more experience of managing peacekeeping operations

2. There is evidence that US military forces (both leadership and troops on the ground) are unprepared for peacekeeping operations in Iraq. Among the indicators that should alarm reasonable people are a number of complaints to UK media by UK officers that their US colleagues are badly-prepared or completely unprepared for such an effort.

3. In every other major assault since the start of the war the US has committed either atrocity or profound error indicative of an almost conscious desire to instill terror rather than simply root out insurgents. The bombing of Al Jazeera in Bagdhad despite said station informing the Pentagon of their position and placing a large banner on the roof is one such example. The assault on a hospital in Fallujah is another.

If someone would like to show me what other Western military force engaged in such gregarious and consistent errors (if errors they were) in prosecuting a war in recent times I'd be interested. Did the Brits, for instance, bomb any hospitals in the Falklands? Darren has already provided an example in the form of the French response in Algeria, but he also indicated that the results of that were an increase in violence and a reduction in peace as a direct result of French military action.

4. Continuing from that last point, the fact that history has taught us time and again that waging a brutal and fuzzy (lots of collateral damage) war in order to put down a domestic uprising by an occupation army only increases support for that uprising.

5. The clear and ample evidence that a reasonably large proportion of the Iraqi resistance would be more amenable to discussion with a more multilateral and by implication less suspect organisation in charge of the peacekeeping effort. As I said on the first page. Sadr said he would happily negotiate with a UN command structure but not a US command structure.

6. Widespread distrust of the US by ordinary Iraqis and its motives as evidenced by countless blogs, interviews and even polls. As I mentioned in my intial posts, a Gallup poll revealed that Iraqis trust the French more than the Americans, despite the French being resistant to invasion. Many Iraqis are worse off today than they were prior to the invasion and they blame the US. Not only that, but many ordinary Iraqis feel the US presence in Iraq is more in the interests of US hegemony than Iraqi welfare.

As, I think, Darren has pointed out, a fair proportion of the civilian population of Iraq consider the US an illegitimate occupier of their country. That body of citizens will never consider it a legitimate peacekeeping force.

Another poll posted on IIDB found that were the US-appointed Allawi to run against Saddam Hussein in an election, Saddam would win (both had support in the 30% area, IIRC).

Given that a large percentage of the Iraqi population don't feel they've been "rescued" from a terrible condition, that many feel (and the facts suggest) conditions are substantially worse and that their is ample reason to believe the US military has been particularly brutal in their "peacekeeping" (as even military allies have complained), its not unreasonable to call their methods into question or call the number of innocent deaths "excessive".

p.s. I don't think a UN, NATO, Arab League or other multilaterally led effort will be a magic panacea, but there's ample evidence that it would be considerably better for ordinary Iraqis.

[Farren]

Bey and Ronin

I picked this up at IIDB and thought it was relevant to our discussion

Hawks push deep cuts in forces in Iraq (http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/11/22/hawks_push_deep_cuts_in_forces_in_iraq/)

WASHINGTON -- A growing number of national security specialists who supported the toppling of Saddam Hussein are moving to a position unthinkable even a few months ago: that the large US military presence is impeding stability as much as contributing to it and that the United States should begin major reductions in troops beginning early next year.

Their assessments, expressed in reports, think tank meetings, and interviews, run counter to the Bush administration's insistence that the troops will remain indefinitely to establish security. But some contend that the growing support for an earlier pullout could alter the administration's thinking.

Those arguing for immediate troop reductions include key Pentagon advisers, prominent neoconservatives, and some of the fiercest supporters of the Iraq invasion among Washington's policy elite.

The core of their arguments is that even as the US-led coalition goes on the offensive against the insurgency, the United States, by its very presence, is stimulating the resistance.

"Our large, direct presence has fueled the Iraqi insurgency as much as it has suppressed it," said Michael Vickers, a conservative-leaning Pentagon consultant and longtime senior CIA official who supported the war.

[Darren]

Ronin,

I would like to point out that when you quote me below, I was correcting a factual error which you posted as a reply to a question posed by Clutch. The question Clutch asked was, more or less, to give an example of military action leading to long term stability in the recent past. You answered: Afghanistan.
The statement I made concerning your reply, and which you quote below (in bold) stands, but it was intended as a correction and not a central part of the argument I have been making in my posts about the counter productivity of the "intensified military action" you advocated in your OP. Now the latter point is the argument wherein you can find the subtlety which Farren referred to.

There is little subtlety in the patchwork straw man you throw together in your post, and into which you would bundle Farren and myself as a sacrifice to the god of howling vengeance. (To which god your OP seems to render some service!). Aside: Eloquent or what? :D

But seriously, I'm not suggesting you haven't considered the issue, I'm just trying to put a different (mainly historical) perspective into view regarding your OP. Ask yourself this question at least, if you were against the invasion and occupation of Iraq in the first place, how can all that you were opposed to suddenly become justifiable on the basis of a murder which likely involved very few participants? Murders do happen in all sorts of places. If a terrific person happened to be murdered in your locality, would you advocate intensified military action to deal with it? Glasgow, the city where I was born, has recently been declared the "murder capital of Britain". Should we bomb it? Think of what your argument hinges (or perhaps unhinges) on.

Finally, you mention AI below - they frequently accuse the U.S.A. of human rights violations - particularly with regard to the death penalty, so do you think the U.S. should be attacked with military force to prevent such inhumane activity?


Ronin,

I don't want to do a line item reply to your posts but what strikes me as immediately apparent is that Darren questioned not efforts to bring about peace but the manner and intensity of those efforts. He quite explicitly described a situation in Algeria where military action was enraged, showed little foresight, picked its targets poorly and resulted in greater misery than peace, as an analogy for Iraq.

By way of reply you appear to have repeatedly mischaracterised his arguments as promoting simple inaction when the argument is altogether more subtle than that.

Really?

Please elaborate on the subtlety I seemed to have missed...I am hopeful that inaction coupled with some magic "subtleness" will provide enlightenment to the huddled innocent who were and are being murdered by such clever rebels.

Similarly Beyelzu you lament the lack of alternatives offered when I offered one on the first page of this thread.

Let's look back and see what you imply that we've missed:

originally posted by Farren ~

You can, for instance, throw your support behind the idea that the US should relinquish control of peacekeeping activities and place its forces in Iraq under UN control. Bear in mind quite a number of UN members initially offered assistance conditional on UN control, a condition Bush and his evil cabal refused to even consider. More recently the US has refused to allow a force not under US control to protect UN staff in Iraq.

later posted by Darren ~

Regarding a comment you made in response to a post by Clutch about military action leading to long term stability in Afghanistan:

this is patently false. All serious reports from Afghanistan show that, with the exception of Kabul, the country is fracturing into numerous fiefdoms under the control of local warlords financing their little worlds by opium culture and guaranteeing them with small arms. These fiefdoms differ in little respect to the Taliban, with the exception that they appear to offer even less security and stability to Afghans on the whole. As for the position of women, according to reports from women's groups within Afghanistan, little has improved even in Kabul, let alone the rest of the country. The Northern Alliance and the Taliban differed on political and ethnic, rather than religious grounds. Also, the taliban are regrouping in the fluid border region between Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan. Stability is very far from being the norm in Afghanistan, and the future is not bright.

Well, which is it?

Is the UN or NATO/International Security Assistance Force (aka non-unilaterally American) presence and support the answer to these problems or not?
...

So, you see, I realize that there is this perpetual loop of devaluing any military action no matter what the cause proposed (mine being the need to prevent those brutal violations that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have been reporting on for years and use military action to deplete the “insurgence” with superior force so that reconstruction and orderly elections can take place).

I have provided several links here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=81110&page=2&highlight=iraq) (and another one here at FF that I am honestly too tired to find right now) that provide a different story. I have also referenced the reconstruction efforts of Bechtel to include the blatant fact that reconstruction is taking place amidst the chaos by some very brave Iraqi people.

For the most part, though, I have grown very disappointed in many here that continue to assume that I effortlessly jumped to the conclusion that intense military action is necessary...as if I had not spent a great deal of time and research considering every single aspect that has been broached by the likes of every participant in this thread.

My advice to those particular members is for them to find some real neocon republicans to take out their pent up frustrations and not the straw-man you have made of me and my views.

In closing, one really only need consider oneself a human being without nationality to see where real need for military action (aka "Force") has been necessary after all talk has failed to secure and protect others so that they can live in peace.

[Ronin]

OK...

The subtle distinction is that Darren and myself argued not for inaction but for altogether different action

Which would be what?

What if the rebel group continued to kill innocent aid workers and foreign civilians the “insurgents” dislike?

What then?

What if the offending foreign force leaves and an alternative foreign force moved in to provide security…yet the carnage continues?

What action would you recommend?

What is your opinion of the recent intense military action (with UN support) by the French in Ivory Coast to protect their interests?

Isn’t there ever a justification (say genocide, for instance) for a foreign force to intervene?

What would meet your particular standard for such an intervention…if ever, that is?

undertaken by different players, with different motives and different tactics. So mischaracterising such a position as arguing for inaction is, um... mischaracterisation.

Clear enough?

No, it isn’t, sorry.

What difference does changing the “players” make and/or their motives and tactics given this situation?

Would it really make a difference if the UN was given full “peacekeeping” duty in Iraq so that reconstruction and elections could occur?

What is your opinion of Kojo Annan and Cotecna?

Either. I'm not the final word on the topic and Darren and I are not part of some brotherhood with a single agenda.

I never claimed that you were.

Conflating our suggestions doesn't demonstrate anything useful unless there's a inferred subtext I'm missing in which case could you explicitly articulate it? We're two different people with similar but differing opinions.

You referenced him on occasion and referred to your own claim to have provided an “alternative” to the current state of affairs. I merely did the same in return.

I think that the resulting “side by side” viewing of each of your posts provides ample indication that there is no real firm alternative available. Others have as much said so in this thread as well.

We do concur, however, that the US is doing a piss-poor job of winning the peace and is even probably a cause of greater instability. The self-evident conclusion is that some other body should oversee peacekeeping in Iraq.

I am not sure that there is “some other body” that has the magic wand to do any better, Farren.

In spite of the mischaracterizations and false assumptions regarding my view by others…I am sincerely open to further suggestions.

Note also that my OP indicates that I share everyone’s concern regarding the premise and foolish mishandling of the situation by the US administration.

What is important (and what many still miss completely) is the fact that I don’t claim that it has to be the US that provides the military action to bring the instability under control.

As liv so adroitly expressed:

[b] I agree Farren, and I suspect Ronin does as well. The question for him - and he should of course correct me at Glockpoint if I'm wrong - is what we need to do now, on the ground, to stop this shit.

liv is again on top of things where I am concerned.

:wave:

I'm not sure how your response addresses what I wrote to Beyelzu other than to corroborate the claim that alternatives have demonstrably been offered in light of Beyelzu lamenting the lack of said.

And as I offered via the side by side viewing of your post with Darren’s…it doesn’t seem that the “other body” alternative is acceptable either.

Ronin, you're being uncharacteristically closed to outside input. I fail to see how you could arrive at the above conclusion based on the suggestions on this thread. Suggesting alternative military peacekeeping arrangements is not equivalent to advocating an end to all military action.

Suggesting that examples where “alternative military peacekeeping arrangements” meet with perceived similarly unsatisfactory results (ala Darren’s Afghanistan post) does not, in my view, provide productive input.

Its important to disentangle issues here. I'm certainly convinced that reconstruction efforts have taken place. Many of them, as evidenced by the chaos of the provisional authorities books and the Pentagons recent refusal to pay up to 15% of their Halliburton bill based on auditors reports, are mired in corruption and inefficiency. But they are taking place.

That every large organization is open to such corruption and inefficiency is obvious. There is, in my view, no pristine organization available to please everyone.

As I pointed out in the “On humanitarian grounds” it is my belief that we (as individuals) should still try to do all that we can.

This does not, however, vindicate horribly mismanaged military efforts which result in excessive and unecessary loss of innocent life and stimulate the very resistance that thwarts many reconstruction efforts, both directly and indirectly (for instance, via reconstruction funds being diverted to security as was recently the case).

I agree.

I am not a proponent of mismanaged military efforts. Why I should feel compelled to actually write that out for anyone is more than perplexing for me.

Ronin, with respect, its curious that you accuse others here of erecting strawmen when in the first paragraph of your post you imply –

posted by Ronin ~

“I am hopeful that inaction coupled with some magic "subtleness" will provide enlightenment to the huddled innocent who were and are being murdered by such clever rebels.

that you indeed believe inaction is being advocated when it evidently has not.

I have reread this entire thread and have found that spelling out how military action has failed (in a window of one historical French example), coupled with the “some other body” alternative does not equate to “action” in regard to the topic of suppressing chaotic intentional group kidnappings and murdering of aid workers and civilians.

It is not my view that complete withdrawal of all non-Iraqi personnel would be a humanitarian solution either…if that was ever included in the “subtlety” factor of “action”.

You may see it otherwise.

I certainly never accused you of being a neocon. In fact, from many other threads I know that we share a great many views that would disqualify you from being said.

Indeed, however, as this thread has progressed…my view has been mischaracterized into a support of the US mismanagement of events prior to and up until present time…complete with insults and personal attacks on my intelligence…when that is a completely incorrect view.

I hope that you may review the thread from that perspective.

That said, I believe that any foreign force (ala UN, Nato or other organization) would meet with more of the same insurgent action and methodology and require intense military action to suppress.

You may not agree.

I think you're being a little oversensitive. How you make the leap from an assertion that you've mischaracterised someones view to having the label "neocon" thrust on you is a mystery to me.

I think that it isn’t that much of a mystery at all…then again, I love a mystery.

:popcorn:

[Ronin]

Bey and Ronin

I picked this up at IIDB and thought it was relevant to our discussion

Hawks push deep cuts in forces in Iraq (http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/11/22/hawks_push_deep_cuts_in_forces_in_iraq/)

WASHINGTON -- A growing number of national security specialists who supported the toppling of Saddam Hussein are moving to a position unthinkable even a few months ago: that the large US military presence is impeding stability as much as contributing to it and that the United States should begin major reductions in troops beginning early next year.

Their assessments, expressed in reports, think tank meetings, and interviews, run counter to the Bush administration's insistence that the troops will remain indefinitely to establish security. But some contend that the growing support for an earlier pullout could alter the administration's thinking.

Those arguing for immediate troop reductions include key Pentagon advisers, prominent neoconservatives, and some of the fiercest supporters of the Iraq invasion among Washington's policy elite.

The core of their arguments is that even as the US-led coalition goes on the offensive against the insurgency, the United States, by its very presence, is stimulating the resistance.

"Our large, direct presence has fueled the Iraqi insurgency as much as it has suppressed it," said Michael Vickers, a conservative-leaning Pentagon consultant and longtime senior CIA official who supported the war.

<emphasis mine>

Cart before the horse.

A release provided in this manner can really only be taken as evidence that the Neocons are prepping their exit strategy to appease their constituents and then call the whole operation a success regardless of conditions on the ground.

I hope with all that I have that once this begins to occur it does not fuel further bloodletting between the rivalrous factions within Iraq.

I hope everyone is as suspicious of such a sudden "in-house" assessment as I am.

[Darren]

OK...

The subtle distinction is that Darren and myself argued not for inaction but for altogether different action

Which would be what?


Part of the action would be a withdrawal of the U.S. presence coupled with the relinquishing of economic and political interference by the U.S. As I (and others) have consistently pointed out, the U.S. presence in Iraq is, in effect an occupation
Otherwise, U.N. procedures such as the establishment of e.g. peacelines (manned by military personnel drawn from various disinterested countries) and the provision of protective cover for genuine reconstruction efforts by non-aligned parties (i.e. NOT companies like BECHTEL or HALIBURTONS which have strong links with the Bushes and their entourage). These efforts would target as a priority the re-establishment of water and sewerage infrastructures (taken out by the U.S. in '91). Medical services would also be a priority. Oil would not - do you see my point?


What if the rebel group continued to kill innocent aid workers and foreign civilians the “insurgents” dislike?

What then?

What if the offending foreign force leaves and an alternative foreign force moved in to provide security…yet the carnage continues?

What action would you recommend?


Iraqi Police action backed up by international support and military force where absolutely necessary. Certainly not the targeting of an entire locality (e.g. Falloujah). We want the population on the side of the reconstructors, not forced into an de facto resistance as such blind military action as the Falloujah operation has effectively done to the ENTIRE population of the said town. (c.f. Algerian example or any other counter-insurgency war waged by a foreign power to get an idea of how such action just doesn't work - you may have internationalist leanings, so do I, but what matters is the public opinion of the Iraqis themselves)



What is your opinion of the recent intense military action (with UN support) by the French in Ivory Coast to protect their interests?


Interesting question! I don't think the U.N. is perfect -far from it in fact, mainly because of the domination of the security council by the U.K, the U.S., France and Russia.
The presence of one of France's largest African military bases in Ivory Coast and its large, dominating economic interests there give the situation a neo-colonial aspect. While the jury is out on the effectiveness of the peaceline being maintained between North and South, the recent action began with an attack on French soldiers by I.C. aviation. The offending planes were then destroyed on the ground by French forces. This blatant disregard of I.C. soverieignty stirred up anti-French sentiments in the Ngagbo led South and the recent French action was not peacekeeping but in defence of the neo-colonial French presence there against such sentiments. In this example we can see again the negative effects of an interested (i.e. neo-colonial) military presence (here France) in a supposedly sovereign nation. The use of firearms and other hardware against demonstrators ( especially the 20mm canon armed gazelle helicopter) is absolutely reprehensible. This is, of course, on a minute scale when compared with Iraq.


Isn’t there ever a justification (say genocide, for instance) for a foreign force to intervene?

What would meet your particular standard for such an intervention…if ever, that is?


Of course there is, take the present state of Iraq for example. But all along I have been arguing, with examples, against the presence of a non-disinterested foreign military force operating in the territory of another nation (soverign or not - but where sovereignty can be argued under the circumstances) with a colonial or neo-colonial agenda. There is such a thing as "minimum force" which is the hallmark of disinterested peacekeeping operations and also of justified police action.
Most examples of genocide throughout history have involved the occupation of territory (or at least the presence in such territory) by effectively foreign powers.




What difference does changing the “players” make and/or their motives and tactics given this situation?

Would it really make a difference if the UN was given full “peacekeeping” duty in Iraq so that reconstruction and elections could occur?


It could, if it was genuinely disinterested. The inclusion of the Arab League as a partner would certainly help. Of course, there is no magic wand to guarantee peace anywhere (or to magically transform a neo-colonial U.S. army of occupation into an acceptable peacekeeping body for that matter - and that is crucial to the whole question of how to stop this terrible situation from deteriorating further).




Either. I'm not the final word on the topic and Darren and I are not part of some brotherhood with a single agenda.

I never claimed that you were.

Conflating our suggestions doesn't demonstrate anything useful unless there's a inferred subtext I'm missing in which case could you explicitly articulate it? We're two different people with similar but differing opinions.

You referenced him on occasion and referred to your own claim to have provided an “alternative” to the current state of affairs. I merely did the same in return.

I think that the resulting “side by side” viewing of each of your posts provides ample indication that there is no real firm alternative available. Others have as much said so in this thread as well.


Please see my last post above for a clear refutation of the first paragraph in bold - if you can't see it its not my fault (or Farren's for that matter). If it would help you could re-read all the relevant posts to clarify.
As to the second paragraph - no real firm alternative? No alternative to the occupation? Whose standards are you applying here?
And even if Farren and I are each (individually) wholly wrong in everything we have individually posted in this thread, that would still not provide ample indication of anything except the incorrectness of our own individual posts, were such to be the case. Certainly, our opinions do not constitute the entire spectrum of alternative possibilities for the future of Iraq.


We do concur, however, that the US is doing a piss-poor job of winning the peace and is even probably a cause of greater instability. The self-evident conclusion is that some other body should oversee peacekeeping in Iraq.

I am not sure that there is “some other body” that has the magic wand to do any better, Farren.


I think everyone agrees that there are no magic wands, nobody is suggesting that peace will suddenly come about overnight under any circumstances.


In spite of the mischaracterizations and false assumptions regarding my view by others…I am sincerely open to further suggestions.

Note also that my OP indicates that I share everyone’s concern regarding the premise and foolish mishandling of the situation by the US administration.

What is important (and what many still miss completely) is the fact that I don’t claim that it has to be the US that provides the military action to bring the instability under control.
As liv so adroitly expressed:

I agree Farren, and I suspect Ronin does as well. The question for him - and he should of course correct me at Glockpoint if I'm wrong - is what we need to do now, on the ground, to stop this shit.

liv is again on top of things where I am concerned. :wave:


All right, but you are consistently resisting the idea that removing the U.S. from the equation would be any more than a waste of time, if not actually a mistake. That is tantamount to an acceptance of the U.S. presence in Iraq. Furthermore, you consistently reject out of hand any idea that avoiding an escalation of violence on the part of any peacekeeping forces is desirable or even viable as an alternative, yet you do not show how such an escalation would be in the interest of the Iraqi people and peacekeeping in general. Please give me one example of a successful counter insurgency campaign post 1945 (other than Malaya, which is borderline and happened before ethnic cleansing became a buzzword).
Also, do you include Liv's first post as relevant in your last sentence?



I'm not sure how your response addresses what I wrote to Beyelzu other than to corroborate the claim that alternatives have demonstrably been offered in light of Beyelzu lamenting the lack of said.

And as I offered via the side by side viewing of your post with Darren’s…it doesn’t seem that the “other body” alternative is acceptable either.

Ronin, you're being uncharacteristically closed to outside input. I fail to see how you could arrive at the above conclusion based on the suggestions on this thread. Suggesting alternative military peacekeeping arrangements is not equivalent to advocating an end to all military action.

Suggesting that examples where “alternative military peacekeeping arrangements” meet with perceived similarly unsatisfactory results (ala Darren’s Afghanistan post) does not, in my view, provide productive input.


Once again, you misuse my references to Afghanistan. Apart from a brief allusion to the affair in my OP, my "post" was a correction to the statement you put to Clutch (see above). I certainly am not equating the situation in Iraq with that in Afghanistan. Am I to read into your reference above that you consider them as paralells?
Actually, the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviets makes a better paralell. And didn't their "intensified military actions" give great results? The country has been progressively destroyed and reduced to a practically medieval feudal affair by continuous violence. Oh, and don't forget, the Soviets were there in the first place to support a democratically elected government and to keep the peace. That's why they employed 'intensified military action'. Do you recommend more of the same? Would you offer a drowning man a glass of water?



Its important to disentangle issues here. I'm certainly convinced that reconstruction efforts have taken place. Many of them, as evidenced by the chaos of the provisional authorities books and the Pentagons recent refusal to pay up to 15% of their Halliburton bill based on auditors reports, are mired in corruption and inefficiency. But they are taking place.

That every large organization is open to such corruption and inefficiency is obvious. There is, in my view, no pristine organization available to please everyone.

As I pointed out in the “On humanitarian grounds” it is my belief that we (as individuals) should still try to do all that we can.

This does not, however, vindicate horribly mismanaged military efforts which result in excessive and unecessary loss of innocent life and stimulate the very resistance that thwarts many reconstruction efforts, both directly and indirectly (for instance, via reconstruction funds being diverted to security as was recently the case).

I agree.

I am not a proponent of mismanaged military efforts. Why I should feel compelled to actually write that out for anyone is more than perplexing for me.

Ronin, with respect, its curious that you accuse others here of erecting strawmen when in the first paragraph of your post you imply –

posted by Ronin ~

“I am hopeful that inaction coupled with some magic "subtleness" will provide enlightenment to the huddled innocent who were and are being murdered by such clever rebels.

that you indeed believe inaction is being advocated when it evidently has not.

I have reread this entire thread and have found that [B]spelling out how military action has failed (in a window of one historical French example), coupled with the “some other body” alternative does not equate to “action” in regard to the topic of suppressing chaotic intentional group kidnappings and murdering of aid workers and civilians.


Again, you fail to understand that the Algerian example (extreme in its clarity yet not uncommon as an outcome of counter insurgency campaigns) was included to point out that intensified military action is not a solution to the Iraqi situation. It was a refutation of your proposed solution (i.e. intensified military action) by means of a clear historical example which you have thus far entirely failed to take on board. In actual fact you have failed to do what you accuse myself and others of doing - you have failed to propose a viable solution to the problem in Iraq.

[Ronin]

Although I have been very busy lately, Darren, I promise to take all of your points into consideration and may or not respond depending upon the level of redundancy I find regarding this topic.

We may just have to agree to disagree.

That said, I do find quite a bit of innocent humor in how you have responded to points I made to Farren, while Farren makes the claim that:

I'm not the final word on the topic and Darren and I are not part of some brotherhood with a single agenda. Conflating our suggestions doesn't demonstrate anything useful unless there's a inferred subtext I'm missing in which case could you explicitly articulate it? We're two different people with similar but differing opinions.

:hysteric:

Thank you for taking the time to provide your views, they have been important to me.

:wave:

[Darren]

That said, I do find quite a bit of innocent humor in how you have responded to points I made to Farren, while Farren makes the claim that:

I'm not the final word on the topic and Darren and I are not part of some brotherhood with a single agenda. Conflating our suggestions doesn't demonstrate anything useful unless there's a inferred subtext I'm missing in which case could you explicitly articulate it? We're two different people with similar but differing opinions.

:hysteric:

Thank you for taking the time to provide your views, they have been important to me.

:wave:

Ronin,

the humour is OK by me and was even anticipated. :wink: Note that your post wasn't actually addressed to anyone in particular, and that your conflation of Farren's and my arguments implicated myself in most of the arguments you made in your post (my name appears in the relevant post about half a dozen times, and there are numerous references to my contributions to this thread). I thus responded to the general (public) address of your post as an interested and implicated individual. Even if in your own estimation you were talking about me and not to me , I'm still justified in responding to the parts of your post I quoted because of its openly public nature. So there's no contradiction of Farren's argument which you quote above, and thus no confirmation of your said conflation. See?
The humour you found in my post was truly innocent!

In other words the real joke's on you! :P :P :P

:wave: :wave:

[Darren]

I am not a proponent of mismanaged military efforts. Why I should feel compelled to actually write that out for anyone is more than perplexing for me.


It is not my view that complete withdrawal of all non-Iraqi personnel would be a humanitarian solution either…if that was ever included in the “subtlety” factor of “action”.


Ronin,

since we have established my legitimate right to respond to posts not actually addressed to anyone in particular and appearing on a public forum (and implicating myself implicitly or explicitly), I would like to deal with the two paragraphs above:

First paragraph (in bold) - you openly supported the action in Falloujah in one of your earlier posts on this thread and you openly consider intensified military action of this nature as a solution to small scale hostage taking and murder in Iraq (c.f. your OP). Just think about it, no one is a self-confessed proponent of "mismanaged military efforts", the point is that U.S. military actions in Iraq are manifestly being mismanaged, (indeed the occupation of Iraq is one huge mismanaged military effort judging by the serious deterioration of conditions there) even if you can't see that.
Thus, in my estimation, based upon your posts in this thread, you are effectively a proponent of mismanaged military efforts . Naturally I acknowledge the subjective nature of this statement, but it is only a response to your own claim in the first paragraph quoted above.

Second paragraph (in italics) - it was never included as such in the "subtelty factor" you refer to. I don't think anyone posting on this thread has expressed such a view or made any comments which imply that they hold such a view as you express above.
Withdrawal of the U.S and British military invasion forces (and coalition mercenaries dubbed "civilians") coupled with their replacement where necessary by blue berets drawn from disinterested countries could form part of a serious effort to prevent escalation of the conflict in Iraq, though.

Furthermore, as a pre-emptive measure to what I guess you're thinking with your genocide question (expressed in another post) coupled with the second paragraph quoted above , I would like to interject that the violent U.S. military intervention in Cambodia, which intensified into a massive arial bombardment of rural Cambodia and which (especially the bombing) led to a massive increase in popular (rural) support for the Khmer Rouge, exemplifies both how intensified military action on the part of a foreign (or otherwise alien) power stimulates increasingly violent resistance and also forces the aggressors to eventually withdraw. The chaotic withdrawal of U.S. forces from Cambodia, with the resultant collapse of the puppet regime in place and the subsequent genocide by the Khmer, highlights two points relating to this debate.
Firstly, genuine action for peace should not be left until the insurgents become totally dehumanized by violence while enjoying increasing popular support of the masses who have been forced by (necessarily blind) intense military action into a de facto resistance.
Secondly, the eventual chaotic withdrawal/collapse of those who relied on continuously intensified military (counter-insurgency) action leaves little or no time or place for peacekeeping forces to be organized, employed and deployed effectively.
As we know, some two million died before the Vietnamese toppled the regime.
I think this scenario should be taken into account regarding the future of Iraq.

[Darren]

Ronin,
just in case you still aren't clear about the Afghanistan example, my post was in answer to this:



There are plenty of examples where violence has been necessary to promote long-term stability.

Afghanistan is a most recent prime example.



This is clearly entirely false, Afghanistan being a prime example of how violence promotes long term instability. Also, for your information, the vast majority of foreign troops there are from the U.S. (15 000) The other 2 000 are drawn from other countries e.g. Germany. They are based in and around Kabul, which is relatively stable, an island in a sea of instability.

Furthermore, regarding your support for the (criminal) U.S. actions in Falloujah, you posted this:


The atrocities I mentioned were occurring prior to the current military action in Fallujah.

Undeterred, the insurgency were able to communicate and receive support. Those lines have been removed along with weapons and some of the insurgents themselves.


Yet the atrocities continue! And how do you justify a view which regards the murderous assault on Falloujah as less than an atrocity on a grand scale?
Also, in the same post you said:


Are the insurgents justified in kidnapping and murdering foreign contract workers and aid workers, bombing Iraqi public police stations, or open civilian areas where coalition soldiers are present, as a part of their cause to rid Iraq of any foreign military representation?


The foreign contract workers you refer to are, more often than not, effectively mercenaries employed on a contractual basis by the coalition. Don't confuse them with the aid workers. (Some 20% of the U.S. forces in Iraq are mercenaries - could be why the U.S. recently vetoed a U.N. proposal to outlaw mercenaries!)
The police stations are bombed because they are seen as U.S. stooges.
The cause is to rid Iraq of the neo-colonial U.S. presence - it is not just "any" foreign military representation (c.f. Farren's relevant post earlier in this thread for the difference a U.N. representation could make).


Are they justified? Are any resistance/freedom fighting movements justified? Have any ever been? I've already said what form I'd like the resistance to take (i.e. Ghandi-esque) - but it's not down to me to decide. Certainly, killing civilians is atrocious, be they childeren, aid workers or just ordinary people, and that stands, no matter who the killers may be, in my view. Remove the aggressors i.e. the conquering U.S. and British presence, and get real efforts at reconstruction (e.g. of sewerage, water and medical infrastructure) and reconciliation underway - anyone who resists that would certainly not be justified in doing so, and it wouldn't take long to convince the Iraqi people of that.

And finally, reffering to the coalition war effort(s), you said



I support such action in this case.

So you clearly do support the U.S. presence (and their actions) in Iraq, including the murderous assault on Falloujah, and somehow you think them justified in using any means to cope with a situation which they themselves created, and one which they are re-creating with every moment they remain there.
In other posts you speak dismissively of magical solutions which you say others' posts imply, yet you see some magical transformation of the U.S. forces in Iraq from unjust invaders to benign peacekeepers, without even a regime change in Washington! How do you justify your belief in this transformation? When and how did it (the coalition's transformation from aggressor to benefactor) happen? How did you come to hold such an extraordinary opinion? :eek:

P.S. I know I'm quoting what was (essentially) originally a post to Clutch, but you make some statements in that post which are relevant to the general debate and which help to clarify your stance in the context of the said debate.