Black Dog

I'm not disputing the fact that many Muslim countries suffer from a lack of freedom. However, this often leads to people confusing correlation with causation and blaming Islam itself for the lack of fredom, when it is merely one factor among many.

"Seems" is the operative word. This sounds like another one of those canards that gets tossed around without much backing. I don't think a exclusive club of "have" countries is the way to bring about peaceful change in the rest of the world. These are the sam epeople who are propping up the "tin pot" dictators you mention, because it's good for business. Is there any reason to think an exclusive club of democracies would behave any different? I expect the rest of the world would look at such a body as an imperialist old boys club bent on keeping the third world in its place. [quibble]Actually there was no post-war resistance in Germany, but that reallt is beside the point.[/quibble] I think this kind of characterization of the insurgency is not only wrong, but dangerous. It's not a single, monolithic entity, but a number highly factionalized groups (often organized along tribal lines) that includes Saddam loyalists, religious factions (like the Mutqada al-Sadr's milita), foreign mujahhadeen and nationlist elements. The problem with applying a universal identity to the insurgency is that it leads to "one solution fits all" thinking. The sheer complexity of the situation requires complex thinking. Never mind teh domestic response: what about the response from the Arab world, the very people who need to be onside if the alleged democratic experiment is to succeed? How would images of teh U.S. bombing the bejeezus out of the very people they claim to be liberating play internationally? Nonetheless, i get your point. Well, that's a scary thought. Interesting idea. Totally ignores the realities of international relations in an attempt to paint a pictuire of acorrupt and instrangient UN bent on foiling the U.S. bid to spread democracy and cute puppies the world over. Nevermind that tthe U,.S. has consistently failed to pony up millions of dollars in back dues to the UN or that the U.S. continuously vetoes resolutions against Israel, and abrogates international treaties on a whim. If the UN, or othe rinternational body, is to function, all nations must have a equal voice. Certain members, be they the US or France or anyone else, should not operate outside the paramaters of the very laws they agreed to abide by simply because they have the power to do so.

No I certainly recognize other factors were at play (of course, we would disagree on what they were), but the WMD was the main hook of the case against Iraq. When human rights, etc. were mentioned, they were usually tucked in after lofty appraisals of Saddam's WMD threat. Of course there's room for improvement. I think much of the problem lies with the power of the Security Council, especially, especially the veto. But is that any reason to scrap the entire body of international law? The same argument can be made that China's atrocities, as well as thouse perpetrated by western nations go unpunished by virtue of the power disparity between east and west. I disagree. While a military victory may look good on paper and for the cameras, the current situation in Iraq was utterly predictable (in fact, many on the anti-war side predicted a long, drawn out guerrilla conflict). I expect other nations on the U.S.'s hitlist are taking careful note of the Iraqi insurgency and preparing themselves accordingly. I agree. Continued support of some of the world's worst regimes totally undermines the west's stated interest in spreading democracy. But it seems economic and political realities always trump human rights.

I see were getting down to the nitty-gritty legalise. As such, I'll keep letting the lawyers do the talking: 1441 was not that resolution. The "all necessary force" quote was in reference to the text of 678. Th eonly mention of the consequenses for violating the extensive term sof 1441 was at the end: However, what those consequenses were would be determined by another meeting of the UNSC. Again, previous resolutions vis a vis Kuwait were no longer valid, as coalition states still required SC approval before resuming hositilites. Furthermore, the argument can be made that 687 was further breached by the U.S. and UK when intelligence operatives were passed off as UN weapons inspectors. Link This itself constituted a "violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty" (as set down in the ceasefire).

This Berg thing is getting weird. First we have the revelations that Berg was held by coalition authorities for some unknow reason, visited by the FBI several times and released after his family launched a lawsuit against Rumsfeld.only to disappear three days later and then murdered. Now it seems like Al Q'eada may not even have been responsible: Link Curioser and curiouser...

I'm aware of that. My point remains as above: If he were to develop WMD, and continue his violations of UN resolutions, the international community could act, provided his accusers could demonstrate that the breach was serious enough to warrant miliary action. Prior to last March, his deceit and non-compliance were deemed sufficient to waarrant another esolution (1441), but that did not authorize immediate use of force, nor did it automatically authorize unilateral military action to effect regime change in Iraq. Here's another view. 1441 only warned of "serious consequenses". What those consequenses would have been would have been up to the Security Council.

Okay, let's accept for a moment that Saddam's dynasty, despite its isolation from the world community, an atrophying military, a bloated beauracracy and the ongoing effects of 13 years of rigourous sanctions, was still poised to rule Iraq in perpetuity. That fact still doesn't make the concept of arbitrary "regime change" any more palatable. As horrible as Hussein was, and as unpleasant as the thought of leaving him and his sadistic brood in power, the dictates of international law and simple common sense do not allow for his removal by an outside military force. The broader issue is whether the U.S., by virtue of its military and economic might and self-proclaimed status as the world's moral policeman, has the right to impose "regime change" on any nation it sees fit. Under international law (law to which the U.S. is signatory and therefore constrained by) nations may use military force only in self-defence (this was the rationale which was used to defend the invasion of Afghanistan). Under the UN Charter, pre-emptive military strikes are permitted only when a direct attack is imminent, all other options have been exhausted and there is no time for deliberation (the Iraq invasion fulfilled none of these critera). The laws against preemptive war were put in place for a good reason: they codified a standard of conduct that would prevent aggression and military expansionism of the sort that plunged the globe world into two bloody world wars in half a century. When nations violated that standard, the UN would act (the first Gulf War being a prime example). Which brings us to Iraq as a humanitarian venture. There's no doubt the people of Iraq suffered terribly under Saddam Hussein and deserved (and still deserve) a chance to live in a free society without fear. But it is the (seemingly) complete arbitrainess of targets that condfounds this argument. Saddam was bad, but there are others who are equally awful, if not worse. One current friend of America is Uzbekistan's President Islam Karimov, who's deeds include arbitrary arrest, torture and extrajudicial killings of political opponents (including boiling prisoners to death). Last year, Washington gave Uzbekistan $500 Million in aid, $79 Million of which went staright to the police and security forces responsible for much of the regimes crimes. Currently, the U.S is building permemnant military bases in the Central Asian state taht will give them a strong foothold in the region and access to teh area rich natural resources. What about Saudi Arabia? Remember? The monarchy that funded Al Q'aeda, spawned Osama bin Laden and several 9-11 hijackers, and represses its own people with torture and arrest? This brutal, repressive anti-democratic state still enjoys a cozy relationship with the U.S., a relationship reflected in the personal and business relationship between Saud Prince Abdullah and Bush (so cozy that Prince Abdullah wa sshown the plans for the Iraq invasion before Seceratary of State Colin Powell). Don't the people of these countries deserve freedom too? Evidently not. Is it any wonder, then, that given America's past and current fondness for nuzzling and nurturing thugs and dictators around the globe, that their moral authority and motivatyions should be called into question? As I said elsewhere, if the U.S. was genuinely interested in building Arab democracies, they would have started somewhere like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, where they could have used economic and political clout to leverage peaceful democratic reforms. Instead they chose to ram democracy down the throats of the Iraqi people in a flawed and ill-conceived and probably doomed adventure that has cost America its international credibility, post-9-11 sympathies, hundreds of lives and billions of dollars. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives, the country is a lawless mess on the cusp of civil war and there seems to be no plan for the new, "democratic" Iraq.

But were these violations serious enough to constitute an unprcedented shift in interantional relations (preemptive war)? Ritter again: DId I ever deny Saddam had WMD programs? Did I deny that he wouldn't revive them if he could? No. Once again, you're misrepresenting my arguments to bolster your own. My point was that, in spite of non-compliance, inspite of all the niggling over "Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities" ( a far cry from the "stockpiles" that were cited repeatedly prior to the invasion), Saddam did not pose a immediate threat to the west or his neighbours and was not likely to become one at any point in the near future. Based on this, a preemptive war outside the mandate of the United Nations, was unecessary and, ultimately wrong.

I said I'd come back to the similarities between what happened at Abu Gharabi and what's happening at Gitmo, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. But Seymour Hersh did it for me. So here ya go. The new gulag.

You do realize that the abuse at Abu Gharabi went much further than a few humiliating photos and naked human pyramids, right? Taguba's report detailed systematic abuse of detainess (keep in mind as well that by the Army's own estimates indicate between 70 and 90 per cent of the detainess held at Abu Gharabi are completely innocent of any wrong doing) that included breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoritic acid liquid on detainees, pouring cold water on naked detainees, beating detainees with broomhandle and a chair, threatening them with rape, sodomizing a detainee with chemical lights and a broomstick, sicking military dogs on detainees, threatening detainees with charged pistols. There also indications of at least two and possibly more unreported deaths, including an instance where a prisoner was beaten, died, packed in ice, and smuggled out of the prison under the guise of receiving medical treatment and dumped somewhere. So, maybe they didn't go as far as sawing anyone's head off (yet), but the physical and mental scars left on these (predominately innocent) people will last a lifetime. Meh. Mark Steyn knows a thing or two about the abscence of reason and logic.

Pinning all the blame for the problems of the Arab and Muslim world on Islam (as though it were a singular, monolithic entity), while ignoring the broader, more tangible social, political and economic factors at work, is ridiculous.

Seeking and having the capability to do so are two very different things. Look back a ways to Scott Ritter's description of how Iraq's WMD program was operating. Unlike you rpicture of a hyper focussed, ultra efficient WMD machine that was poised to swing into action the instant sanctions were lifted and the pressure was off, we instead see a corrupt, bloated, bureaucratic regime where scientists took money from Saddam for WMD work that was never done, filed false information and basically, lied to stay alive and to lin etheir own pockets. First, there's no mention in Kay's report of Saddam posessing precursor material. There is a single mention of attempts to aquire some, but no evidence stating any such material exists. That's a big if, and certainly one that was beyond Saddam's grasp, given that most of his production and research and development facilities were destroyed in the 13 years since Gulf War 1 (a fact you continue to bypass, despite being confirmed by Ritter, Blix and even former WMD program head Hussein Kamal, who defected in 1995). In other words the desire was there-there's no doubt Iraq explored clandestine means of developing WMD-but the means to do so was not there. Kay's report is long on speculation and suggestiveness, but short on anything indicating Iraq would have the actual means to assemble a viable WMD program, especially since there was no indication UN sanctions would have been lifted any time in the near future. the sanctions would have outlived Hussein, were it not for the invasion. Some exerpts: This says nothing about CBW development or production or deployment, and proves nothing about whether the equipment was actually intended or designed for CBW purposes. There is no indication Iraq went any further. Of course, as I said before, any country, with time, access to production facilities and amterials, could whip up a CW program. there's no evidence to indicate Iraq had the means to do so. I could go on, but we have a general picture here of the situation. -Iraq's WMD production facilities and stock piles were destroyed after the 1991 war. (Ritter, Rolf Ekeus, Hussein Kamal) -Iraq maintained a minimum of documentation and some materials that could have been used to restart a WMD program, provided UN sanctions were lifted. (Kay) Your entire case hinges on what could generously be termed speculation and can be summe dup thusly: Iraq had the potential to become a threat at some unspecified point in the future provided sanctions were lifted and he had the opportunity to pursuse, unhindered and unobserved, WMD development which could then possibly be used to threaten to his neighbors and give Iraq an "unreasonable and dangerous influence" on the region and the whole world. Maybe. Foreign policy by Ouija board. Do you understand semantics? How about spin? Context?Do you not grasp that the statements we both cited may not have explicitly used the term "imminent threat", but were designed to create the impression thjat Iraq was an imminent threat that needed to be dealt with? It's called disinformation. So you you have no problem with a government misleading its own people and using the threat of terrorism and the memory of 9-11 in order to force what would otherwise have been an immensely unpopular venture upon them? To this day, huge numbers of Americans still believe that Iraq was connected to 9-11 and that WMD were found. That's the effect of the Bush administrations disinformation campaign. As for what I belived: I never believed in WMD. I certainly don't buy the democracy angle either. I've read the work of the PNAC policy hacks (which you seem to ignore) tio see through the B.S. Nowhere did I say he had permission. You completely made that up. Anyway, here's the transcript of U.S. ambassador April Glaspie's meeting with Saddam immediately prior to the invasion of Kuwait. The link. Is your position really so weak that you have to continue to attribute statements to me that I never made in some attempt to paint me as a Hussein sympathizer instead of someone seeking put a historical context on a current situation? Iraq was mostly bankrupt as a result of its long and bloody war with Iran. More ifs and maybes based on guesses and speculation. What of the other instances I mentioned, where the U.S. could have use dpolitical and economic power to leverage democratic reforms within states allied to them? If democracy was really the goal, that would be the strategy that would have made the most sense and would certainly have been less costly. As it is, pretty much all the predictions made by the supporters of this war (that WMD would be found, that America would be met as liberators, that the Arab world would support the invasion) have been wrong.

You're missing a vital part of the equation, and that is who is behind the orders to "soften up" prisoners in the first place. So, we have a situation where senior intelligence officials (CIA, FBI, NSC and god knows who else) as well as private contractors (accountable to who?) are issuing orders to enilsted personnel. Now, it's possible some of the activities were not authorized by the interrogators in charge, but, then again, maybe they were. Where things get extra dicey is when you see that there is a consistent pattern between the goings-on at Abu Gharabi (which were well-known to everyday Iraqis and the Red Cross) and similar reports of alleged torture at Guantanamo, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere.(Link) I've gotta jet, but will expand on this later.

There's no harm in looking at the past for clues as to how things will probably shake down. I have little faith that the hearings will expose any of the institutional elements that led to the torture and other acts in the prison. I expect some of the prominent players (particularily the GIs photographed) will be hung out to dry. Consider the example of the My Lai massacre: 500 civilians slaughtered by 150 U.S. troops. After an extensive coverup, 25 soldiers were eventually charged, six tried and only one convicted. Military justice is seldom about actual justice (particularily when it comes to correcting institutial flaws) and more about creating the perception that justice has been served. That goes for any military (as the Canadian coverup of the Somalia debacle shows).

No, I basically assum etaht humans (especially humans exposed to the threats and violence and general inhumanity inherent in armed conflict) are universally capable of incredibly heinous acts against their fellow man. When you couple that tendancy with a sense of self-righteousness (which both sides have in spades), you have a recipe for tragedy. Tell me, did the threat of court marshal deter the jaolers at Abu Gharabi? Did the possibility of facing a commission of inquiry give them pause as they savaged prisioners with attack dogs and beat others nearly to death? No. Either they were following orders, or believed (as Berg's murders do) that the justness of their cause forgives any of their crimes (victor's justice). Bottom line: there will be more crimes. To deny this is to deny the simple reality of war.

Your being fatuous, KK. You know as well as I do that the run up to the war was a massive, highly orchestrated PR campaign. You can review the record and see that the administration's carefully constructed messaging (a "grave and gathering" danger, a "unique and urgent" and "immediate" threat , a "distinct threat" to security and to the stability of the world) was intended to create the impression that America was in pressing danger from Saddam's WMD and action needed to be taken immediately. (Why Saddam was a greater danger now than at any time in the previous 12 years was never explained.) That Iraq's WMD "stockpile" was an immediate threat was the hook that sold the war. How many people, after all, would have supported this war if they believed Iraq was disarmed? Without an imminent threat, or the perception thereof, they would have had no case for war at this time. As for the future threat posed by Iraq, comparasons to past behaviour are worthless without the context in which they occurred. Saddam invaded Iran with the (at minimum) tacit approval of the U.S. government and much of the west, who saw Saddam's secular regime as a bulwark against a regional Islamic revolution. The invasion of Kuwait was motivated primarily by economic concerns (Iraq's economy floundered following the costly Iran Iraq war, during which Kuwait actually supported Saddam's regime; Saddam wanted Kuwait to forgive Iraq's outstanding debt and to cease slant drilling of Iraqi oil reserves) and with the understanding that the U.S. would have no position on a regional dispute. So, while Iraq has a record of aggression, it was far from senseless. If anything, the atatcks against Iran and Kuwait were motivated by Hussein's concerns for self-preservation. To extrapolate from these regional conflicts to make the point that Hussein would launch a WMD strike against the U.S. or its allies (at which point the regimes destruction would be assured) ignores historical context and preexisting patterns of behavior. Quite simply, wars cannot be fought on an "if".

I'm not talking about pronouncements from officialdom, who will no doubt condemn Berg's murder as they condemned the abuse at Abu Gharabi (even as they seek to scapegoat individuals and cover the brass' asses at every turn). I'm talking about the very real policies on the ground, policies carried out by the business end of an M-16 or Abrams tank. We've heard bits and pieces about various atrocities committed by American and British troops. Expect things to get worse.

Just off the top of my head, there was Roamania's Ceausescu, who controlled a formidable network of security and intelligence organizations and still fell. Hussein's regime would have fallen. Authoritarian dictatorships tend to have a limited life span (as limited as those of their rulers). There were many signs (including the practices of Iraqi scientists who conducted bogus WMD "development" at the state's expense; they just took th emoney) that the regime was rotting from within. Saddam's regime would have collapsed sooner ratehr than later. This natural process could have been facilitated by western support of the 1991 uprising or of internal resistance groups. Do you believe everything you read? War and occupation ar eusually accompanie dby high-minded rhetoric to the effect that the war/occupation is for the people's own good, or for democracy, or for the security of the nation. Such claims are always best taken with a grain of salt, at least. I've heard the phrase "America is afraid to do what it takes to win" many times. What exactly does that mean?

To borrow your (flawed) analogy, Robinson confessed, returned the property and took responsibility. Israel, like Iraq, has lied, obstructed and flouted the law with respect to its (very real, very active) WMD program, yet it gets a free ride. Now, I'm not campaigning for a violent regime change in Israel (as much as I would love to see Sharon dragged, dizzy and disoriented from a spider hole of his own), but I'm asking that the universally accepted standards of international law be applied equally. The law is not selective, but sets universal standards of conduct. Giving individuals or nations "get out of jail free" cards renders the law irrelevant and damages any authority or credibility we have to speak to moral matters.

I wish I could agree with you, but I've been reading too much of littlegreenfootballs.com to actually think that cooler heads will prevail. On the contray, I fear there will be elements of American society and its leadership who will use Berg's death to justify the crimes in Abu Gharabi and call for more of the same. I can't wait to see what Ann Coulter will say about this... :barf:

So your outrage over non-compliance with UN resolutions and international law, as well as posession of illegal WMD, is strictly selective. Moral relativism noted.

Of course the response wil be predictable. "This is war" they will cry. Bombs wil fall, atrocity will be met with atrocity, and, in the end "these guys" and their ilk will win by dragging us down into the cesspool of the worst human behavior with them (which, for some, as the Abu Gharabi photos show, is a short trip). Interestingly enough, Berg was held by coalitioon authorities for a period prior to his capture. It seems he was released just in time to get murdered. Pa. family angry with American government over son's brutal death

Kay's report proves that Saddam wanted and, in some cases, tried to resurrect the weapons programs that he had built in the 1980s, but that the United Nations sanctions and inspections prevented him from doing so. Kay's report paints apicture of Saddam as being a threat to aquire WMD after Iraq was free of sanctions. If you read it, it's hedged in sugestive language and speculation, but short on real proof of any ongoing efforts to rebuild the WMD program. Hence the shift from the pre-war "stockpiles" of WMD we heard the White House talk about to talk of "WMD related program materials". Just about any country, starting from scratch, could produce chemical weapons, given enough time and access to the materials. But as I indicated earlier, Iraq didn't have the facilities (chemical weapons of th etype Iraq was accused of posessing are highly unstable and require special production facilities and stabalizing agents) or the raw materials necessary for a viable chemical weapons program. There's nothing in Kay's report the contradicts my previous statement that Iraq would have had to start its WMD program from scratch. So again, we're back to the question of whether or not Iraq was an immediate threat, as suggested by Bush, Rumsfled, Powell, et al. By your own admission, the answer is "no". The simple soultion, given the conclusion of the Kay report, would have been to maintain sanctions (albeit a modified, more humanitarian, regime) and periodic inspections.

No it's not. It's a perfect illustration. Article 51 of the UN Charter states that no nation shall attack another except in self-defense. No qualifyier. The UNSC did not give the invasion its blessing, so it occurred outside teh UN's mandate and was illegal, no matter how selectively you choose to interpret prior resolutions. As an aside, I find it fascinating that right-wingers will often bring up Iraq's noncompliance with UN resolutions, but clam up when one points out that Israel has the single worst record of non-compliance of any nation. At that point the UN becomes "irrelevant". Basically you make an assumtion that all the U.S. motives are pure as the driven snow and work backwards. I look at the past behaviour of the U.S. and its current policies like its National Security Strategy, the primary goal of which is to prevent the rise of any nation that could challenge the United States. Of course, even if I were to give the U.S. and the PNAC crowd the benefit of the doubt, I still do not believe that the methodologies used (unilateral invasion, etc.) are conducive to building democracies. As I've stated elsewhere, if the U.S. was truly interested iin bring democracy to the mid-East and the Arab world, they would have started small, with some place like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, places where the U.S. could have leveraged democratic reforms without the use of force. That's not evidence of a "rising tide", as most of those organizations have been around for ages (Hamas, for instance, was founded in the late '70s). You'll have to do better than that. History is overflowing with examples of worse tyrants than Saddam who have been consigned to the dustbin of history by thei rown people. That said, you're ducking the question, which isn't whether the Iraqi people are better of without Saddam, but whether or not military force is the best way to implement democracy. To borrow a historical analogy, how different would U.S history be if, instead of a homegrown revolution overthrew the British, France came and kicked Britain out. How happy would the revolutionaries be to replace one occupier with another? The point here is that democracy is not a gift that can be handed out to deserving brown people like candy. By definition, it must come from the struggle of the people.

I'd say a programme that destroyed 90-95 per cent of Iraq's weapons producing capabilities is pretty effective. And as for the idea that Saddam could just start new programmes once the inspections finished, well, that's easier said than done. It took Iraq many, many years to develop the weapons programs it had pre-1991, programs developed with support from western nations. To do it again, they would have to start from scratch, having been deprived of all equipment, facilities and research. They would have to procure the complicated tools and technology required through front companies. This would be detected. The manufacture of chemical weapons emits vented gases that would be detected. They'd have to do it right under our noses, undetected. Not too likely. You seem to have blacked out. I'll post it again, just for you. (hint: immediate means "right now") I don't know. Pride? Stupidity? Again: what stuff? David Kay's report: Once again: 687 states that its up to the Security Council to “take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the current resolution.” Period. Yes. Israel's nuclear capability is a threat to regional stability, especially if it were to fall into the wrong hands. That's why we have treaties liek the Non-Proliferation treaty: to stop the spread of dangerous nuclear weapons and prevent the possibility of nuclear conflict. In fact, Isral's nuclear status was a key impetus behind Iraq's aborted efforts to go nuclear.