Comments on: Picking up the gauntlet

By: mitch

mitch — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 08:25:16 +0000

My response to Greg is here.

By: Greg

Greg — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:11:00 +0000

Well, yeah, the Kosovo campaign was far from perfect, though I do tend to think that it was generally well-intentioned, at least in terms of how it was carried out. Loads of targets were deemed unsuitable because one government or another felt it wrong. Sure, they screwed up a lot, but considering how complicated and messy war is, that is to be expected. I did have issues not merely with the way the refugee issue wasn’t thought through but with the lack of American ground troops; as an aspiring hegemon, it wasn’t enough to supply hardware, especially when their allies were ponying up the cash as well as ground troops – you have to lead by example. I got the feeling at the time that they were on a steep learning curve in a ‘humanitarian’ war. Unfortunately, the lessons weren’t taken to heart, and the entire approach was ditched by the new regime.

By: pepi

pepi — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:09:02 +0000

There were brigades of lawyers engaged by NATO forces to minimise inadvertant war crimes and civilian casualties. NATO’s command structure required unanimous support for all actions. So maybe, just maybe, there would have been less collateral damage in a war run by NATO than by an American led posse. Er, Greg, maybe not. The NATO bombing of former Yugoslavia for instance was longer and heavier than in Iraq and there were many more ‘collateral damage’ screwups and ‘mistakes’ (to name a huge one, the Chinese embassy being wiped out), the infrastructure was more heavily affected, hospitals left with no electricity, factories destroyed,etc. Even the first bombing of Iraq in 1991 was a lot heavier than last year. You’re absolutely right in the rest of your points, and I do agree from a political point of view going through an already-established alliance like NATO is better. Obviously the military strategy is always managed primarily by the US and Britain so it’s not a huge difference during war, but it can make a political difference in post-war management. It just doesn’t necessarily make things better in terms of civilian casualties during bombings. Bombings always kill and destroy, no matter if they’re right, wrong, multinational or unilateral. So I don’t think casualty numbers have really any weight in that kind of judgements.

By: pepi

pepi — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:24:26 +0000

Nat Whilk: actually, English is not my native language, but I don’t think I’m treating it that badly really. I just get frustrated and too repetitive when I have to re-explain something that seemed very clear to me. I took for granted it’d be read in the meaning I was using it in, if one read the whole context of the discussion and the posts. Instead you jumped ahead and thought I was implying a statement about “real reasons” as in “this war was only for oil”. Since I didn’t mention oil, or any judgement of condemnation or approval about the war itself, it’s you who took a leap there. You’re right that “ostensible” is a more appropriate definition. But, when I said “the humanitarian concern was never the real reason” – I meant both that it was not the reason technically used at the UN, the ostensible, professed reason for legally arguing military intervention, and that even when used ostensibly in arguments made to the public (outside of the UN legal process) it was clearly not the one and primary concern. There’s many other cases for humanitarian concern that did not result in military intervention, or even UN talks aimed at discussing what kind of intervention should be made. Even in Kosovo, where the humanitarian reason was the one ostensible reason for intervention, there must have clearly been strategic and security interests combined with the concern for escalating ethnic violence, otherwise, it would have been forgotten and ignored just like Sudan has been. So, to go back to the initial point, when we isolate that “humanitarian concern” as the primary or even single reason for war in Iraq, as the put-up-or-shut-up argument explicitely does (“if you’re against the war, explain why do you still want a murderous dictator in power”), we’re being very misleading and untrue to facts. If that’s still not clear, you are welcome to write my posts for me in the form of English you judge most suitable to your tastes. You are also welcome to discuss the entire Oxford dictionary instead of the actual points being made in this discussion, only I’ll have to leave you to it. Cheers.

By: Greg

Greg — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:44:13 +0000

Mitch, I’m not sure what your point is. Is it: a) A couple of guys from Kuwait have it in for America, so Iraq was engaging in a terrorist campaign against the US? Or b) Kuwaiti and Saudi attackers on the US had been assisted when in Europe by members of a Syrian terrorist group who had been backed by Iraq when Iraq was backed by America, so Iraq was engaging in a terrorist campaign against the US? Sebastian, you’ve asked ‘is there any reason to believe that there would be a significantly lower civilian casualty rate under a UN or other international banner?’ Well, possibly. Read Wes Clark’s Fighting for Peace. Or Michael Ignatieff’s Virtual War. There were brigades of lawyers engaged by NATO forces to minimise inadvertant war crimes and civilian casualties. NATO’s command structure required unanimous support for all actions. So maybe, just maybe, there would have been less collateral damage in a war run by NATO than by an American led posse. As for your sneering at the lack of European troops in Afghanistan, and saying that even if there were another 20,000 troops the contribution would be laughable, since that wouldn’t even be close to the Australian contingent, proportionately calculated… 40,000 troops out of 450 million people would be slightly higher (.0089%)than 1,500 out of 20 million (.0075%). And of course far higher than 11,500 out of 290 million (.0039%), which is the American contribution. After all, John M has it completely right. NATO offered complete assistance after the attacks on New York and Washington, and George and his cronies just sneered at them. It’s a bit rich to complain that they’re not helping enough now.

By: mitch

mitch — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:55:44 +0000

One guy from Kuwait tried to blow up the World Trade Center, and then his uncle finished the job eight years later – does anyone think that’s odd? Why are Kuwaitis leading Al Qaeda’s charge against the USA? Why would a bunch of close relatives from Kuwait be Al Qaeda’s most capable operatives and leaders? Why isn’t Kuwait crawling with journalists trying to find out more about this family of uber-terrorists? Anyone?

By: pulling numbers out of their asses

pulling numbers out of their asses — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:47:54 +0000

Everybody is just pulling numbers out of their asses. And if nobody has any idea whether Iraqis would have been better off with or without an invasion, then the humanitarian justifications for the war are essentially meritless. Unfortunately, the humanitarian arguments are all that are left for the pro-war side, because all the other justifications have been utterly discredited and everyone knows it.

By: Zak Catem

Zak Catem — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 03:53:23 +0000

Giles: This 2003 HRW report estimates executions as ranging from hundreds per year to thousands per year. At no point does it mention tens of thousands, let alone thirty thousand. This 2002 state department report estimated 1,500 executions in 1998. Must have been a slow year, eh? I’d dig around some more, but I think I’ve done enough to cast doubt on your 30,000. Giles, people like you are a waste of everyone’s time. You’d much rather accuse people of fabrication than go out and find the truth for yourself. Considering the fact that you are obviously already on the internet, that’s pretty lazy.

By: Nat Whilk

Nat Whilk — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:52:02 +0000

Pepi wrote: “I should have not use the wording “real reason” because you clearly are understanding it as something else, as in “the real deepest motives that pushed us into this war”.” There’s a good English word for what you now appear to have meant: “ostensible”. The OED says it means: “Declared, avowed, professed; exhibited or put forth as actual and genuine: often implicitly or explicitly opposed to ‘actual’, ‘real’, and so = merely professed, pretended.” (Emphasis added.) “Oh, and I do not advocate peace, love and understanding at all.” Really? So what’s wrong with torture? “I advocate ruthless keyboard deprivation for people who consciously misrepresent other people’s views in ridiculous ways.” As you’ve been cornered into admitting several times on this board, it’s your own use of the English language that misrepresents your views.

By: pepi

pepi — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:47:26 +0000

PS - You earlier explicitly denied that it was humanitarian, and in this latest follow-up you appear to be explicitly denying that it was anti-WMD or anti-terrorism. I did not. I didn’t deny any such thing. In fact, I explicitely said that WMD was indeed the ‘real reason’ (=technical reason used in the technical, legal process at the UN and within the government, etc. – see post above). I could not deny that even if I wanted to because it is a fact. That was the technical reason given. Unlike the humanitarian reason—which was NOT used as a legal ground to justify the war (as had been for Kosovo, for instance), but only for the purposes of convincing the public. Whether WMD was a “real” reason as in “truthful” (which seems to be your interpretation of “real”, it sure was not mine), I do not know. And so I cannot say. And I did not say. End of totally redundant clarification.——— – thomas: the above clarification applies to your strawmen too. I don’t think it is accurate to say that the case at the UN was all WMD. The case was non-compliance with UN dictates, which required affirmative disarmament. The tendency to see things as all about WMD leads people to the common mistake of believing that the UN inspectors in Iraq were looking for WMD, instead of looking for evidence of disarmament. Disarmament from WMD. The required evidence was evidence of destruction of biological and chemical weapons. And evidence of no plan for nuclear. If you have been on this planet in the past two years, you cannot have missed that. I would appreciate it if pepi would point me to a discussion of the discussion of the Kosovo war and the reasons for it offered by the US at the UN prior to the attack. Excuse me, are you asking me to brief you on something you didn’t bother to learn about? The reason was humanitarian intervention, to stop the massacres in Kosovo. That was the reason given both in the UN, and outside, to the public, media, etc. The argument given to the public was one only, on all fronts. Google for yourself, if you missed that one too. Though I can’t understand what you’re doing on a political website if you have no clue of such major things as these.!

By: pepi

pepi — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:27:45 +0000

Nat Whilk, I’ll try again: I should have not use the wording “real reason” because you clearly are understanding it as something else, as in “the real deepest motives that pushed us into this war”. That’s NOT what I meant. If you do want an answer about what deep, obscure reason it was, don’t ask me! I didn’t make the decision. Ask Bush, Tenet, Rumsfeld, whoever you want that actually knows. Cause I sure don’t. Capisc? I hope so. The point was simply that the reason used in the strictly technical process to justify war (ie. the process that went via the UN) was not the humanitarian concern for Iraqis being tortured by Saddam, but the lack of proof that his regime had disarmed from WMD. That was the subject of UN talks and resolutions that led to the war. That’s fact, not my opinion. All clear so far? Hope so. Now, next step: the humanitarian concern, in spite of not being the “real reason” – the technical reason given at the UN – was still used widely and abundantly in arguing the case for war vis a vis the public, the populace, the people, the voters, the subjects, the citizens. Via politicians’ speeches; media interviews; editorials; op-eds; articles, etc. It was added onto the WMD argument, especially after the WMD argument turned a mess to sustain and the UN process didn’t produce the results that were desired by those who had already decided they wanted to go to war. That’s all. I don’t think it’s that hard to understand? I’m not making any argument pro or against the war itself. Just pointing out the difference between what arguments were used and where. Oh, and I do not advocate peace, love and understanding at all. I advocate ruthless keyboard deprivation for people who consciously misrepresent other people’s views in ridiculous ways.

By: Giles

Giles — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:20:24 +0000

Zak – like the others on the board I went to the link Daniel supplied us (i.e Human Rights Watch)and found a figure of 30,000 per year. “See how easy it could be to refute his argument for real, instead of merely hinting that he might be making it all up?” so yes very easy; but Daniel now tells us that the state department has a better figure of 3,000 but doesnt tell us where this is found. Is it classified? It seems odd that some one should make an argument, the central point of which is totally unstubstantiated

By: st

st — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:16:07 +0000

Sebastian: But if you think comparing high point involvement to low point involvement makes for a useful discussion, I totally see where you are coming from. I wonder if you do. In fact, the curves that have been drawn in Afghanistan (declining U.S. involvement vs. increasing European involvement) are exactly the curves both Bush and Kerry have stated they would like to see happen in Iraq. My argument with your position is not a pro- or anti-war argument. My point is simply that it is of limited utility to insult and deride the Europeans for doing in Afghanistan exactly what we now want them to do in Iraq. Right now, the Europeans make up the majority of the forces in Afghanistan, and take their orders from the U.S. military. If I can say that about Iraq this time next year, I'll be a happy man. I don’t care if you want to argue against the war, though it is a bit late now. Actually, Sebastian, if you take the position that the Europeans should be dismissed as a bunch of unredeemably weak pussies based upon what they did or didn't do at, as you termed it, "the high point" of American involvement, without regard for how useful their current actions in Afghanistan are, it would be you who are unnecessarily fixated on arguing about the past.

By: John M

John M — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:19:31 +0000

Re. the French contigent in Afghanistan – I seem to recall that France was eager, in the aftermath of 9/11 and in solidarity with America, to send a much larger force and play a much larger role in Afghanistan, from the very start. The Americans basically said “we don’t need you” and then proceeded to delay the arrival of French troops and then sent them to Mazar to paint schools. This set the tone for the rest of the Chirac/Bush relationship. All in all you have to say the French have been incredibly graceful in face of all the crap and disinformation spewed out by the U.S. media and governement (not to mention the lies of Chalabi).

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:17:52 +0000

ST, you are comparing the high point of European involvement to the low point of US involvement. I am comparing the history of European involvement since 9-11. I am comparing Europe’s rhetorical commitment to the war against terror to its non-commitment of significant resources in even the allegedly clear case of Afghanistan. Pittance is indeed the correct word for that comparison. Very few countries in Europe have made any significant out-of-country commitment of resources of any type to combat Islamist terrorism. This is true in the clear case of Afghanistan. It would have been even more true in the murkier case of the highly improbable UN-backed Iraq invasion. But if you think comparing high point involvement to low point involvement makes for a useful discussion, I totally see where you are coming from.