Iraq - You Break It, You Buy It
From the very beginning, I have been against the invasion of Iraq.
A little over 1 year later, we are left with a sad story about oil, greed, freedom fries and weapons of mass destruction. It was never about democracy.
Something went wrong last year, something important, that shouldn’t be forgotten. Namely that the second Gulf War was started on false premises. It is important to remember, because this fact alone signifies not only a major democratic problem, but a significant change in the way nations wage war. It is a dangerous precedent, that an invasion can be justified by bad “military intelligence”.
Denial and Deception
In February, 2003, Colin Powell visited the UN in an attempt to rally support for an invasion of Iraq. In a colorful presentation set in big bold, beveled letters entitled “Iraq – Failing to disarm”, he presented the U.S. case.
He mentioned several reasons why invading Iraq was absolutely critical at that time; Saddam Hussein had attempted to obtain nuclear weapons materials from Africa. Saddam Hussein had connections with Al Quaeda. Iraq posed an imminent threat to the U.S. and the iraqi neighbors. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
- The evidence that Saddam had tried to obtain nuclear weapons materials from Africa was forged.
- The claim that Saddam Hussein had connections with Al Quaeda, was later contradicted and withdrawn.
- The “imminent threat” that Iraq supposedly pose, is invariably tied together with the fact that no weapons of mass destruction was ever found in Iraq. The U.S. has virtually given up on the search. David Kay, former top U.S. weapons inspector plainly said, “we were all wrong”. Rumsfeld even lied about his statements about the urgency of the war.
All this seems to have been forgotten. But it is a vitally important fact, that the war was started on false premises. It is a point that cannot be argued.
Instead, the purpose has changed. Now the war is no longer about disarming a threat, it’s about liberating a country.
“America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people” – From State of the Union address, January 2004
Indeed the capture of Saddam Hussein was a positive step, but the master-plan for removing him from his throne was flawed all along. The amount of troops needed to fight the war was miscalculated, not to mention the consequences…
“Things have gotten so bad inside Iraq … we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators” – Cheney, prior to the war
– Instead the troops were met with a guerilla war.
I cannot claim to have all the answers to what should have been done instead of this war. But initiating a preemptive war based on false premises, with a flawed plan, without UN support definately wasn’t the way to go.
In fact, it all comes down to cause and effect. The cause for the war, was forged. The effects are yet to unfold. I hope for the best, but fear the worst.
Why not North Korea?
There are many wrongs, in our messy little world. As a planet, we should strive to right these wrongs, and make it a better place. Iraq, did indeed have a brutal dictator, and the cruelties commited in the former regime were unforgivable. No-one can argue this. Something had to be done.
But is this different from what happens in China, North Korea, Cambodia and most parts of Africa? No. Cruelties and atrocities happen every day, all over the world. This doesn’t mean we should stand by idly and do nothing, quite the contrary. But when pondering specifically the Iraq war, one has to think, why Iraq, when there are so many other places just like it? Well for one, North Korea probably has nukes, so we can’t “liberate them” right at the moment. The same goes for China. Africa is quite a mouthful. And Iraq has oil. That’s right, the precious black commodity that flows in tonnes, every day. In a world where oil fuels our entire society, I refuse to believe that the second largest proven oil reserve had nothing to do with the choice… of “liberating Iraq”.
Democracy?
In latin, democracy means “people’s choice”. The word alone, is contrary to the idea that it can be forced upon a country with shock and awe. It is no longer about choice.
Democracy must be learned. We know that from the USSR—they are still learning to this day—but the seeds of free elections have been sown, and it has been born from within. I believe that Russia will remain democratic, and learn to appreciate its values.
Perhaps Iraq can too. But with guerilla wars, an inflamed middle east, terror attacks and casualties daily, it is a country that has been broken. We cannot force western ideologies and values upon such a country. The only thing the war has brought Iraq is destruction. How can we expect the iraqi people to trust that “we know better”? We broke Iraq, and so say the values we preach: “If you break it, you buy it”.
It looks like we just bought Iraq for many years to come, and if we want to force democracy, it’ll be expensive.
Was there really, no other way?
- Riemann Hypothesis
- Iraq - You Break It, You Buy It
- Nigritude Ultramarine
- Address-bar Searches in Firefox and Internet Explorer
Thanks for your comment, Anders, sorry for taking so long to reply.
You present a valid case, but do not convince me.
Regarding the article on "Irelands top business site" -- it was cleverly Google News'ed just for the reply. I was trying to make a point that it takes very little to "rock the news media", if it's about oil prices possibly rising.
Well, profitable venture for who? For the american people I don't think this war will ever be a profitable venture. Gas prices will remain artificially low, but "You break it, you buy it" -- everything has a price and forcing democracy for years to come is going to be damn expensive.
As for making a deal with Saddam, an option -- true, but it would give him the upper hand. Also, the "food for oil" program did exist, not to forget.
Indeed France made some bad moves. I won't even try to defend them.
Quote
Anders,
What was the war about then? Do you really believe Bush was serious about WMD and links to terrorism?
Quote
kjsgirl, sorry for not replying to your post before.
I agree that living in a country that has freedom of speech is a blessing. One day I hope we can all take that liberty for granted. Til then, we'll just have to use it as much as we can.
Quote
Where to start:
In the Powell speech you linked to a close inspection will show the word "imminent" was never used.
You noted no Al-Qaeda links. While certainly not conclusive evidence of extensive collaboration, the 9/11 report seems to give a great deal of weight to the charges that there were "ties" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It also rains on the parades of one Mr. Clarke, who had claimed Iraq was a diversion, that there was "absolutly no evidence tht Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda, ever". In fact, it is quite devastating on that point, using Clarke's own words.
I've compiled all the (notable*) Iraq references in the report....with links to the 9/11 report pages.
Page 58: Bin Laden built his Islamic army with groups in various countries, including Iraq.
Page 61: Bin Laden willing to explore a relationship with Iraq.
Page 61: Bin Laden agrees to stop supporting activities against Saddam; Reports indicate Saddam may have supported, or at least tolerated, Ansar al-Islam.
Page 61: Bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, and asked for assistance. No evidence of an Iraqi response. This was not the last attempt.
Page 66: Iraq took the initiative to contact Al Qaeda.
Page 125: Clarke suggests that a chemical factory is probably the result of an Iraq-Al Qaeda agreement. Chemical evidence backs that up.
Page 134: Clarke discusses the possibility--even likelihood--that Bin Laden would move to Baghdad, if attacked in Afghanistan, and cooperate with Saddam.
Page 334: Clarke's report found anecdotal evidence of an Iraqi link to Al Qaeda, but no compelling case that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Something Bush never said and was a result of media spin.
I should note that neither I nor the 9/11 Report are claiming that Iraq and Al Qaeda were engaged in an ongoing collaborative relationship. I merely point out that there was quite a history of mutual overtures, an apparent willingness to work together, and possible historic cooperation on chemical production/training. I neither suggest, believe, nor consider it relevant to the prewar calculation, that Iraq was in an ongoing cooperative relationship with Al Qaeda. As Bush said, the danger from that relationship laid in the future.
On to this little piece of nonsense quoted from your entry: "The U.S. has virtually given up on the search" Do you not read the news? The search has never stopped. In fact a final report is due out in a few weeks. Part of the reports results have been leaked to the press.
It will also add more evidence and flesh out Kay?s October findings. Then, Kay said the Iraq Survey Group had only uncovered limited evidence of secret chemical and biological weapons programs, but he found substantial evidence of an Iraqi push to boost the range of its ballistic missiles beyond prohibited ranges.
Nothing to see here.. no threat. Please.
A short note on the "war for oil" meme. At start of the war the US imported 20% of the total output from the Arabian Gulf area. So what you are really saying is no war to protect the world's supply of oil. A full brakedown of the meme can be read here.
And another short note on the Oil for Food program you mentioned. It was corrupt and broken from its inception. All under the nose of Kofi and his son who stood to profit from it, among thousands of others. None of which were Iraqi children, and their mothers.
Quote
Rumsfeld used the word "Imminent", several times, as you'll see in the video:
As for your references to Iraqi / Al Quaeda ties, I find them all to be vague, inconclusive, and as Clarke's report appearantly states (as you quote) -- anecdotal. It is hardly enough to start a war on a country, even when all diplomatic options were not exhausted.
In fact, what if we were to compare those ties you mention, with the Bush / Saudi connection (so cleverly illustrated in Fahrenheit 9/11)? How's Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein for connections? What about the fact that the US supported the Mujahedin warriors in Afghanistan (including one of later herostratic fame, Osama Bin Laden) in their war against communists? In fact, one could argue that Al Quaeda used to have stronger ties with the US than with Iraq.
My point is -- there was not by a longshot reason enough to invade Iraq. This leads me to believe the war was for many other reasons than to strike back at terrorism, or even "freeing" Iraq.
Quote
" As for your references to Iraqi / Al Quaeda ties, I find them all to be vague, inconclusive, "
I said the same thing in different terms. The point is there were many ongoing ties with Saddam and, as will be pointed out in the forthcoming Duelfer report he had every intention to restart his missle programs among others when the UN sanctions were either lifted or became week enough to work around them.
As for the use of imminent, your original ref was to the Powell speech, yet you change the reference to a video of Rumsfeld when it is shown you were mistaken. Strange that.
Why is it that Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam over 20 years ago relevant Todays context? Are you trying to say that the policy in effect in '83 could and should not be changed? Are you saying that because you believe it was wrong then that the US should continue that same wrong relationship? Not a very persuasive arguement.
" In fact, one could argue that Al Qaeda used to have stronger ties with the US than with Iraq."
Sorry, better do a little more research al-Qaeda didn't come into being until well after the Russian/ Afghan war ended.
A few questions. 1. Why in your mind is it not justified to "resume" a war that was stopped by a ceasefire agreement in 1991. An agreement that was repeatedly and blatantly violated since 1991.
2. Did you support the war in Kosovo? Also a war that did not have the "UN stamp of approval" until after it started.
A couple further points - Is it not supporting terrorists, as Saddam did, to supply Palestinain suicide bombers families with payments of $25,000 each. A sum that was raised to $35,000 just before the war.
Here are a couple more terrorists that Saddam supported, Abu Nidal who Saddam asked to help train al-Qaeda terrorist groups. And Abu Abbas whose group killed an American on the hijacked cruise liner Achille Lauro in 1985.
Quote
Untrue. I was not quoting Powell. I was simplifying and summarizing the content of his speech, not quoting actual words. The point of it remains though, as the immediacy of the war was urged across the board, in one word or another. The Rumsfeld clip was just an example of this.
As for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, they both illustrate a point. The point is, that when the US is best friends with a country, that country does not constitute "terrorists". As soon as that country becomes the enemy (the case of both Al Qaeda and Saddam), they are classified terrorists.
As a wise man said: One country's terrorists are another country's freedom fighters.
In this case, Al Qaeda is "just" a terrorist network. The fact that Al Qaeda came to Afghanistan after the Russian/Afghan war ended, does not change the fact that Osama Bin Laden, who benefitted from US support in forementioned war, was surely classified a terrorist by Russia, at that point in time.
Your questions.
1. It is unjustified because it did not have the support of the UN security council.
2. Yes, I did think the Kosovo war was necessary. All that which the UN does is not always right.
As for Saddam supporting suicide bombers, I've never heard about that. Saddam was an asshole, but it makes no difference in my thinking the Iraq war was fundamentally flawed. The same goes for your last newsbit.
Quote
You are not alone, many people have not heard that Saddam supported the terrorists in Palestine. There are many reasons for that, simple lack of knowledge, and being blinded by ideology among them. But as I said he did, and would still be paying it, if he were not sitting in jail.
I again maintain the Rumsfeld/Saddam meeting is instructive of only one thing. That times and situations change both on the personnel and national level. Do you understand why America in that time frame was supportive of Saddam? Do you recall over two hundred American hostages being held by Iran for over a year due to the feckless and incompetent Pres. Carter? As many things in life, including US elections, at the time it was a choice between the lesser of two evils. Support for Saddam then was a counter balance to the newly installed Mullahs in Iran. And as history teaches us, was the beginning of State sponsored terrorism and along with it the ideology of the world being ruled under Sha'ria Law.
Surely you jest. Freedom fighters were the French resistence in WW2, or the Contras in Nicaragua. To equate the term freedom fighter with Islamofacists, whose ultimate goal is to place the world under the thumb of Talaban like rule, is the height of moral relativism.
Iraq today is far, far better off today than at any time since Saddam's rule began. Of course we could turn Iraq over to the UN and they could setup another, in a long line of sex for hire establishments, something they are VERY good at.
Quote
I almost forgot this bit of nonsense
Really, and why is that? Is it because of the evil Bush empire keeps prices low? Is it because of the "many Bush ties to the Saudi's? ' (Which BTW doesn't explain why oil prices are going up that could hurt the US/World economy and Bush's re-election)
Oil is a product based on the worlds supply and demand just like any other produce. The disparity in US/European prices - and Japans for that matter - is based solely on government imposed taxes. To say or imply anything else is flat out wrong.
Quote
Please excuse my taking so long time to respond. These are not simple matters to discuss, and I do have to ponder my response before typing it.
Let's not confuse priorities. Saddam is a brutal dictator, and I like him as little as you do. The real debate here, is whether the war was absolutely the last resort, which I completely disagree with, for reasons mentioned in this article.
While I'm sure you know more about Jimmy Carter than I do, calling him incompetent is something I'm sure a lot of other Americans will disagree with. He did, after all, get the Nobell Peace Prize "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development". Surely this peace prize is not handed out randomly, some people must have found him competent. And hostage crisises are not easily solved, just look at the two recent, terrible events in Russia.
But yes, I understand why times and situations change. It is, politics, after all. But already then, Saddam was considered a bad guy, not? So how does this whole issue not demonstrate the flip-flopping of opinions? This was my point, and I stand by it.
I do not jest, I am quite serious. The classification of being a terrorist vs. being a freedom fighter is entirely dependant on your perspective. I am not talking about Islamofascists, French resistance fighters or Nicaraguan Contras. I am talking about terrorism on a meta level.
The definition of terrorism, as defined by FBI:
Illegal activities, through the use of force, to further political beliefs.
Is that not, exactly, what freedom fighters fight for?
No, I do not jest at all. The perspective is all-important, and unless one really considers the other side of the story, one'll never understand why Iraq is all but fighting a civil war now.
The whole discussion of whether Iraq is better off today than it was before the US invasion is ... ignorant! You are forgetting that Iraq was not the only dictatorship at the time! If you'll reread the part of this article entitled "Why not North-Korea?", you'll know what I mean. The choice of Iraq was deliberate, and not in any way related to "freeing the Iraqi people", or "toppling a regime". It was about Weapons of Mass Destruction! More than a thousand soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died for this reason, do not forget it.
War was not the last resort, that is my very point. It precedes the whole "better off today" debate, which I by the way strongly disagree with, and Powell does too.
As for Oil prices, you are forgetting how Bush keeps prices low. That is at the very core of my "nonsense". "Food for Oil"... I mean, what is that anyway?
Quote
A short word about oil prices, you said:
No that is nonsense that either you have read in a slanted article, or you constructed in your mind to justify an anti-war stance.
This data is using California California prices. Adjusted for inflation the price has gone up during Bush's time in office with the exception of 2001, and 2002 as a result of a world wide drop in demand directly related to the 9/11 attacks. This year 2004 it is at the highest US price level ever. So where is the Bush "keeping prices down" evidence?
Sorry that should have been Oil for Food Program. It is detailed in length at Friends of Saddam. And note the the three largest benefactors are France, Germany, and Russia. The same triumvirate that blocked any US attempts to avert the war via the UN Security Council.
Lets start with Pres. Carter, you may believe he was an effective President but I stand by my assessment, he was the worst US Pres. in the 20th Century. Rather than dwell on Carter here are some of his "accomplishments." But I will add this.
Considering the fact that Palestinian PM Arafat (the world's oldest terrorist) also won a Peace Prize in 1994 it just may call into question how they award the medal. After seventeen years of on-and-off intifadah, the Palestinians, led by Arafat, have done nothing but bomb civilians in pizzarias and night clubs. Of course Jimmy Carter called him a "Statesman." Arafat lets not forget he walked away from a Clinton brokered deal that gave him over 90% of what he demanded to continue his reign of corruption and terror.
You can believe Saddam was no threat but one of his own nuclear scientists gives every indication that was not the case. Here is a sample from the link.
In The Bomb in my Garden, Dr Obeidi details Saddam?s quest for a nuclear bomb: "Although Saddam never had nuclear weapons at his disposal, the story of how close Iraq came to developing them should serve as a red flag to the international community."
And from the NYT is the second installment of his article.
In addition to the inspections, the sanctions that were put in place by the United Nations after the gulf war made reconstituting the program impossible. During the 1980's, we had relied heavily on the international black market for equipment and technology; the sanctions closed that avenue.
So far, Obeidi makes a strong case for weapons inspectors, save for one subtle piece that becomes apparent later on: the Iraqis already had the expertise and had managed to hide enough of their research, the most critical of it in Obeidi's own garden.
Of course Saddam didn't want to openly rock the boat while stuffing his bank accounts with Western cash, primarily from the same nations that opposed the eventual effort that deposed him. On the other hand, there wasn't much boat-rocking with which to be concerned, when many of the same people -- including the UN bureaucracy entrusted to enforcing and and maintaining the economic sanctions -- directly benefitted from Saddam's kickbacks. The monetary motivation to keep things running smoothly existed in spades on all sides except the Iraqi people, whose money went everywhere except onto their plates.
The sanctions regime would not have lasted forever, and even after 9/11 UN members pressed for an end to it and a restoration of Saddam as a major trading partner. With billions in cash reserves from Oil For Food corruption and billions more coming in from legitimate trade, Saddam could have used the core of his dormant nuclear research to quickly reconstitute an enormous threat -- and by hiding his chief researcher and all of the necessary data, it would have been, as Obeidi says, a snap.
And let's not forget the revelation that a number of Iraqi nuclear scientists and their materials were smuggled into Syria just before the invasion. Obeidi warns the world of the danger presented by his former colleagues:
And what of the recent Syria Revelation of two days ago?
The Iraqis, who brought with them CDs crammed with research data on Saddam's nuclear programme, were given new identities, including Syrian citizenship papers and falsified birth, education and health certificates. Since then they have been hidden away at a secret Syrian military installation where they have been conducting research on behalf of their hosts.
There is one large distinction in your definition of a terrorist. (BTW I would agree it matches what would be called a freedom fighter) A freedom fighter is sowing his terror in a localized area, i.e. one country or area of that country. Islamofacists stated desire is to conquer the whole of western society. You, me, democracies, dicators, it matters little to them. Anyone not under Sha'ria law is their target. Read bin- Laden's Fatwa of 1996, and the second issued in 1998. Then tell me you believe he is the run of the mill every day freedom fighter. For the sake of everyone I would hope you are right, but it is very doubtful. It is World War 4. A loss means my daughters and any you may have may live without an education, be subjected to "honor killings," and female circumcision.
Quote
Did you stop and think that oil might run out some day? Say, in 40 years? I honestly do not believe oil prices can stay low all the time, no matter what measures are taken. Per definition, they will rise directly related to the decline in global reserves. I'm surprised the oil prices haven't risen further already.
There are other reasons why this war was about oil, and I will quote what I wrote to another commenter in this thread:
The real reason this war was about oil, is not about profit. The real deal lies in the macro-economics and so-called "energy security".
1. Projected reports show that U.S. oil production will drop by 12% over the next 20 years, increasing the dependence on imported oil. At the same time, U.S. oil consumption is set to increase 33%.
2. Some speculate that the strength of the dollar is tied to a U.S. deal with OPEC to denominate oil sales in dollars.
3. With the (as mentioned) second largest proven oil reserve, Iraqi oil production is set to soar post-war, due to international investments in oil industry expansion.
4. As the "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century" report states:
As for France, Russia and Germany -- did I even once voice my support for those nations or their personal interests in the war? No. The UN consists of more countries than those (thank god). My anti-war stance doesn't mean it's Europe vs. the USA. It means it's my opinions against the war. Just because I live in Europe, doesn't mean I agree with what happens here!
You mention a lot of interesting quotes and sources for Iraqs dormant nuclear programme from prior to the first Gulf War (which I supported). Is any of it relevant to this war? Is there any proof that there was an imminent threat to the US and Iraqs neighbouring countries? Is there any proof that Iraq planned to reinstitute their weapons programme? You quoted it yourself: "threat is always a matter of perception", but was their anything imminent about it?
Are you forgetting, by the way, that the UN weapons inspectors did enter Iraq prior to the war, not finding any evidence of any weapons programme or the interest to start one? Did you forget, that these very same weapons inspectors recommended against the war?
I will ask again: Why not North Korea? When we are acting world police, anyway, why not rid of the rest of the bad guys?
As for terrorists vs. freedom fighters. I must iterate that I do not condone any extremist forms of religion, be it the mis-interpreted islamism, or even extremist christianity. Religion has nothing to do with politics, no matter what religion you cling to. As such, I'm not particularly a fan of Sharia law, which at the very core is religion and politics combined.
Do not get me wrong when I say this: whether one is a freedom fighters or a terrorist, it is entirely defined in the eye of the beholder. The very reason for suicide bombers, is that they believe in their cause. While I can certainly see why you (and I) would label that a terrorist, do you not agree that if you turn the perspective 180 degrees, the suicide bomber would be considered the freedom fighter? As such, whether the freedom fighting or terrorism is local or global, it doesn't matter. I am convinced that many suicide bombers see the US soldiers in Iraq as terrorists.
Once again, this just shows you that the very word "terorist", which is emotionally loaded, has no purpose at all. We all know that blowing yourself up is wrong, we know that killing is wrong, and we know that freedom is good. Is this not enough? Do we really need a vague label such as "terrorist"? Isn't that to overly complicate things?
With this response, I would just like to mention that I really appreciate your taking the time to reply here. While we may not agree, this very discussion is an expression that there is intelligence on both sides of the issues.
Quote
Let's not forget Saudi Arabia, a country with appaling human rights violations.
Or, for that matter, the USA. Detention without trial, a leader who, for 4 years, was not elected by the people. It all adds up...
Quote
I agree completely. The things that are happening right now at GITMO belong in the last century. It's mindboggling! But hey, GITMO is part of Cuba, so they can do what they want to there. Duh.
Quote
Fuck bush.
he is very very very stupid man.
Quote