Comments on: Don’t They Know There’s a War On?

By: liberal

liberal — Sun, 19 Sep 2004 16:34:15 +0000

james wrote, I supported the war in Iraq. The support was based solely on Iraq’s repeated attempts to shoot down US war planes in violation of the cease fire treaty from the 1991 war. Have you ever heard of the concept of "cost benefit analysis"? Just because Iraq tried to shoot our planes down doesn't mean that we should have invaded. Based on the history of the occupation of Germany and the Philippines, I expected about 5 years of post war violence. How would the situation in post-war Germany (a European nation essentially inhabited by a single ethnic group speaking a single language, with no recent history of colonial occupation) be at all relevant to that in Iraq? And the mention of the Philippines is particularly amusing---how many Philippinos died in that American occupation? And what was the rationale for the occupation?

By: liberal

liberal — Sun, 19 Sep 2004 16:25:50 +0000

mark wrote, Or has the left abandoned the last pretence of caring about the actual people who stand to suffer most from the left’s continued support of genocidal dictators? Moronic. Not attacking Iraq at the time of Bush's choosing does not equal support of Saddam. In fact, if you actually knew anything about history, you'd know that some people who supported Saddam when it was convenient---and Saddam was killing a lot more people---are in the Bush administration: Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984

By: sevenless

sevenless — Sat, 18 Sep 2004 20:55:48 +0000

Just a friendly reminder, for all the baying warmongers, ex-baying warmongers (remorse-stricken or maybe just realising that, hey, shouting for the mass death of foreign strangers is just, like sooo 2003), propaganda-fronting “journalists” of BBC, CNN et al., generals, politicians and ordinary schlubs who either didn’t bother to fact check their nation’s grave decision to invade, bomb, torture, maim, occupy and rape a nation that never attacked it—or perhaps secretly revelled in being powerful, untouchable and bloodied with revenge— There is blood on your hands.

By: Walt Pohl

Walt Pohl — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:50:37 +0000

Mark: If you tried actually participating in a conversation rather than just casting weird aspersions on “the left”, it would be good for your soul.

By: geeno

geeno — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:12:31 +0000

Parenthetically, I regard myself as a leftist. War is a ruthless enterprise; mistakes never go unpunished.

By: geeno

geeno — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:09:09 +0000

My own attitude toward the war was always “What’s the rush? he’ll be there tomorrow”. Certainly taking Sadam out was a good thing, for us AND the people of Iraq, but I saw no reason to rush, and it was very rushed. Set things up with the allies, get all of your ducks in a row, THEN invade. As soon as I saw the looting in Baghdad, I knew they blew it. They went in unprepared for what they were, very predictably, going to face.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:54:26 +0000

Is the view of the majority of Iraqis that their liberation was not, in fact, a failure, of any consequence to the left? Or has the left abandoned the last pretence of caring about the actual people who stand to suffer most from the left’s continued support of genocidal dictators?

By: baa

baa — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:43:03 +0000

Matt, I don’t think the FT article you and Belle cite supports the degree of pessimism expressed. Let’s stipulate that it’s 100% accurate. Even so, while it’s bad that the US coalition can’t completely secure the green zone, such complete scurity does not seem to be a necessary condition for successful occupation. If once every month there’s an attack in the green zone—does this mean the occupation has failed? Would not this judgment depend on what else is happening in Iraq? Does the current lack of green zone security mean that security can not be restored? All I see from both sides are fragments of the picture, eagerly snatched up and stretched to represent the entirety of the conflict. Again, The Belmont Club post Belle links (and dismisses) suggests that the vast majority of attacks are concentrated in a few regions. Do you regard this as irrelevant, or could it mean that pockets of resistance, though strong, are isolated, and do not represent the situation throughout Iraq?

By: Alfredo

Alfredo — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:32:04 +0000

The simple response from conservatives would be that it’s the liberals’ fault that the Iraq liberation did not work, because domestic oppositon weakened the country’s resolve, just like it was said of the Vietnam War. This does not make any sense, of course, but it since it’s almost unfalsifiable, it works for them.

By: Kimmitt

Kimmitt — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:22:26 +0000

We cannot discuss the war in Iraq, because the very act of noting that things are going badly would be perceived as wishing that things would go badly.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:12:42 +0000

‘I’m very sorry to say this, but we are f%$#ed.’ Dear Belle, you are wrong, and furthermore your wrongness indicates that you personally are spineless, a coward, not in favour of resistance to jihadis and morally worthless. Not being rude but you are. This is because: 1) The war in Iraq is splendid because the more people the US military kill in Iraq, the fewer they will have to kill in the US - oh, did I mention this has a catchy ‘flypaper’ metaphor attached to it? (Mark Steyn, Gregg Easterbrook, some washed-up Canadian who came up with the metaphor, every chickenhawk in the blogosphere); 2)The war in Iraq is insufficiently splendid, but only because we have yet to attack Syria and/or Iran, who are of course the only reason for the insurgency’s success (Mark ‘consistency is a virtue only to the sane’ Steyn, Charles Krauthammer); 3)The war in Iraq is splendid, and for anyone who thinks, for example, that Tony Blair has anything to apologise for, I have a really storming joke about Trotsky and Stalin to prove that ‘Marxist humour really isn’t an oxymoron- also, I will prove that said war is splendid by making up silly rhymes in response to Guardian articles; second childhood, isn’t it fun? (Norman Geras). 4)The war in Iraq is insufficiently splendid, but only because we have yet to definitively impose non-Sharia law on the Iraqi population, which would presumably have to be done by the British and American armed forces, and would be an incredibly smart move aimed at decreasing violent Shi’ite attacks on our troops (Ophelia Benson, and if she has the brass neck to complain about inaccurate summaries she can stop telling blatant lies on her own website, and can also tell her catamite Jerry to stop deleting any poster who calls her on said lies); 5)The war in Iraq is splendid, gosh let’s change the subject, and now let me explain that we didn’t declare war on terror, terror declared war on us, as is proved by the Beslan atrocity, and no I’m not going to mention Russian atrocities in Chechnya- these, by definition, are non-terrifying, non-terrorist atrocities (David Aaronovitch); 6)The war in Iraq is splendid, because we are bringing freedom to Iraqi Arabs, who are child-abusing cowardly terroristic sicko adherents of the Religion Of PeaceTM (LGF in public, and one wonders who else in private); 7)The war in Iraq is splendid, but a war on North Korea would be even more splendid, and should be declared forthwith (Johann ‘Of military age’ Hari). 8)The ‘war’ in Iraq was not a war at all, as witness the tiny number of US and UK casualties, but was still splendid (Christopher Hitchens, various Slate articles in April and May 2003, reprinted in ‘A long short war/Regime Change’); 9)The war in Iraq is splendid, despite the high number of US, UK and indeed Iraqi casualties- about whom, having quoted some poetry, I shall now maintain a dignified silence, showing that I, unlike those who pontificate about dead GIs, fully understand the nature of these brave sacrifices (Christopher Hitchens, in Slate a couple of days ago). I could go on, but my contempt for these people rises by the day.

By: james

james — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:03:34 +0000

I supported the war in Iraq. The support was based solely on Iraq’s repeated attempts to shoot down US war planes in violation of the cease fire treaty from the 1991 war. Based on the history of the occupation of Germany and the Philippines, I expected about 5 years of post war violence. Failure to take into account external support for violence in Iraq was a mistake. I still support the war.

By: WeSaferThemHealthier

WeSaferThemHealthier — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:03:06 +0000

I’d like to know: What other contributors to CT have at any point in time been in favuor of the invasion of Iraq?

By: WeSaferThemHealthier

WeSaferThemHealthier — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:42:56 +0000

Walt Pohl, “I think we’ve taken a big step towards the day when formerly-pro-war people must set themselves on fire in public to atone to the anti-war side.” Well, it’s an interesting idea that’s worth investigating. Nevertheless, I would much prefer people signing up and going to Iraq ( as combat infantry, of course ).

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:38:16 +0000

baa, I don’t think it will do to say “some people say Iraq is going well, some people say it’s going poorly” and call it a draw. There are some ground-level facts we can work from:

At a briefing earlier this month, a high-ranking US officer in charge of the zone’s perimeter said he had insufficient soldiers to prevent intruders penetrating the compound’s defences. The US major said it was possible weapons or explosives had already been stashed in the zone, and warned people to move in pairs for their own safety. The Green Zone, in Baghdad’s centre, is one of the most fortified US installations in Iraq. Until now, militants have not been able to penetrate it.

If you accept the major’s premise, then I think it’s hard to escape the conclusion that Iraq is a total clusterfuck. And since we are about to choose whether the people responsible for that clusterfuck will get to continue to direct the country for four more years, it seems like a relevant fact to bring up. In other words—why shouldn’t other advocates of invasion admit it’s a clusterfuck, if it is one? The facts don’t seem that hard to evaluate.