The Iraqi Resistance and the Noble Cause

“for all that, to take up arms against an occupying foreign army is not an ignoble thing to do.”

I’m not so sure. Taking up arms to defend human rights seems like a noble thing, but taking up arms to defend the honor of the fatherland? Morally neutral at best, at least in my book. Nationalism is notoriously intoxicating. It’s especially dangerous when it is not married to a program of liberal democratic reform.

“to take up arms against an occupying foreign army is not an ignoble thing to do”

But doesn’t that depend? Surely if the country being occupied is, say, Nazi Germany (Harry to the contrary notwithstanding, no I know that’s a cheap shot), and the occupying army is the allies, not many of us would consider the taking up of arms to resist particularly noble. Or if the country is Rwanda at the start of the genocide and the occupying army is the UN in overwhelming numbers armed to the teeth – would we consider the resisting Interahamwe not ignoble? I think not. And so on. Obviously you know all this, and I’m not saying the occupying army in question is the equivalent of the allies or the UN – I’m just querying that particular generalization.

Since we’re in the realm of pure hypotheticals why don’t we say that the occupied country is the Land of Mordor and the occupying army is made up of cute little kittens with machine guns and led by Sir Yehudi Menuhin?

In that case, in whatever case, considered on its own as an action, it is not ignoble to defend your own piece of soil from invaders. It is ignoble to be a Nazi, or to massacre anyone, but viewed purely under that description, resistance is not ignoble.

btw, I just realised that not everyone would have had the same rather bizarre education as me and might not realise that “the Noble Cause” is one of about a dozen seventeenth century phrases which are code-words for Jacobism.

Seventeenth century phrases for Jacobism? What the hell am I talking about?

“…Whatever happens, this war will have been a collossal waste of money and life; tens of thousands of excess deaths to create a puppet state…”

There’s some attendant vagueness in that statement. A “waste” for the people whose money it was, whose lives; or for the people who are spending that money and sacrificing those lives?
Not the same people at the end of the day, you know.
There is the tiny, virtually sub-audible but irritatingly persistent, question as to whether the stated goals of this bloody business were in fact what were motivating its planners.
Looked at from Mars, it could well be that the present result was what was intended all along. A broken Iraq, economically and militarily disunited – in fact disunity might be the best way to describe what was the real motive behind the invasion and occupation, from the get.
Disunity. Democracy was simply a selling point to seduce the funders – the American taxpayers.
It had nothing to do with liberation, and everything to do with neutralizing and dominating what was a threat, and is now merely wreckage.

The Iran-China analogy (or non-analogy) is interesting. What if, 12 months from now, the US has essentially punted on providing security for much of the country and the Shiites come under sustained attack during a Sunni uprising? If Tehran got a signal from the US, an April Glaspie style nod-and-wink, could they resist entering and trying to secure a southern “safe haven” for Shi-ite Iraqis?

And my Scottish history is not very good — do you intend a specific analogy between the removal of James II and Saddam? Or am I being too literal?

Von:

I think this is really the most interesting thing from your post: “This is not to say that, given the history of, umm, Germany and the Holocaust, some out-of-line-i-ness is not understandable.”

At least at the socioeconomic std. most blog readers have reached, I suspect that accusations of an “-ism” are (in some fashion) predictions about both decisions and related outcomes that might result from the accused having power. And the rest of us are able to judge those claims for reasonableness given the totality of circumstances. So, for example, it’s reasonable to worry more about Trent Lott’s obliquely worrying statements about race than about Byrd’s long past membership in the KKK. Even if Byrd was a virulent racist (which I’m sure he’s not), the fact that African-Americans are a vital part of the Dem coalition makes it unlikely he’d have big negative effects. But Lott, as a southern Republican, doesn’t face those same in-built restraints (and had more power), so we worry more about potential outcomes.

Given that the Democratic party has been the de facto party of minority rights, Republicans are probably held to a higher standard, and that’s probably generally fair. This guy might have been working against that higher standard (which might be unfair in his case – I don’t know).

seventeenth century phrases for Jacobism

by which Daniel means Jacobitism, not to be confused with Jacobinism, for which there are many fewer seventeenth-century phrases.

The is an awful lot of rubbish talked about the Iraqi insurgents; a simple look at the geographical distribution of their attacks shows that they unlikely to all be Sunnis or Ba’athists

Nobody every said they were likely to be *all* Sunnis or Baathists–that’s a straw man. But the fact that an attack occurs outside the Sunni triangle does not mean that the Baathist/Al Queda insurgency is not responsible. Nor, of course, have all attacks on coalition troops been carried out by the Baathists or their Zarqawi-led allies. Of course, months ago Sadr’s militia was shooting at the coalition forces rather vigorously, but they were not co-ordinated with the Baathists–they hate the Baathists (and vice versa).

and they are not targeting civilians in much greater proportion to military targets than we are.

Oh brother. From article linked to in your post:

“At just one sewage project in Baghdad, for example, as many as thirty Iraqi workers were shot in only three months late last year. It is an unusual record only because someone kept count.”

‘We’ are not targeting workers trying to earn a living while at the same time doing essential repair on the sewage system, the water system, or the power grid. ‘We’ are not assissinating labor leaders, election workers, professors, doctors and other professionals, etc, etc.

One could argue that US forces have been criminally negligent in protecting civilians in their fight against insurgents, but even if you believe that–to compare that to the INTENTIONAL, TARGETED killing of precisely those civilians working to improve the lives of Iraqis and to create conditions for democractic government–that is repugnant.

They are the direct moral equivalent of the Viet Cong; they represent much of what is worst about the human condition, and any future in which they gained power would most likely be outright disastrous, but for all that, to take up arms against an occupying foreign army is not an ignoble thing to do, and I can quite understand why lots of people on the left have been sympathetic to them.

No, I cannot understand it. To know that ‘they represent what is worst about the human condition’, to realize that ‘any future in which they gained power would most likely be outright disastrous’ (for the long suffering people of Iraq a thousand times more so than for us) and to *still* be sympathetic to those bastards…my God.

In the case of the Viet Cong, those on the far left at least shared a Marxist political outlook. But what progressive can have ANYTHING in common with Islamist terrorists? They are violently opposed to EVERYTHING that progressives should hold sacred–democracy, human rights, religious tolerance, secular government, equality for women, equality for gays…EVERYTHING. And yet there is sympathy for them simply because…well, because they are shooting at American troops.

ajax,

Well if that is the case then I am glad the threat has been removed.

I have not heard the song but am reasonably certain the tune is the same as that to which Dylan sang “Pretty Peggy-o”.

>Those who are equivalent of the Viet Cong are really tomorrows Pol Pots, who will redo the exact same kind of Killing Fields and become a breeding ground for another Khmer Rouge (Saddam) that will be exactly like Cambodia. Anybody having to do with US interest and US relations will even end up in refuge camp or they will die.< You do realize that the NVA invaded and overthrew the Khmer Rouge, right? KR drew its strength from the rural countryside, which sympathized with the deposed Sihanouk. I'm reluctant to draw a direct analogy between the Viet Cong and the Iraqi insurgents, the Hue massacre and other depredations notwithstanding, because as a lefty I recognize a fundamental distinction between (post-)Stalinists and fascists.

Ewan MacColl has a great version of the song, also. I never knew the words were by Burns.

You’re assuming a kind of atomism about the moral significance of activities like resisting invasion

No, I’m explicitly not. I think the words I used about the Iraqi resistance were “they represent much of what is worst about the human condition”. What I’m saying is that they can be considered as defenders of their country and considered as such, they aren’t ignoble. Genghis Khan, or Moses, or Napoleon, or Julius Ceasar can all be viewed in ways which make them look noble or ignoble. They all have their defenders; I have a soft spot for Bonaparte myself.

Dsquared: I didn’t say you were being atomistic about resisters – that would have been false, for the reasons you give. But you *are* being atomistic about the activity of resisting invasion – you think it’s not ignoble, and under that description those who engage in it are doing something not ignoble. But what I’m suggesting is that atomism about such activities is mistaken – it *is* ignoble, and thoroughly wrong , not to say evil, for Frederick West to resist invasion of his house to put an end to his hideous tortures and murders. We can’t say that under the description of resisting intruders, what he’s doing isn’t ignoble. It’s ignoble because of what he is and what he’s done. Atomism about the moral significance of single features just won’t work.

The above post was to Ophelia. Eve doesn’t appear to me to be asking trick questions, so she gets more of an answer.

The word “noble” belongs to non-consequentialist morality. A Homeric Greek would definitely say that, for example, it would be more noble for Hitler to have gone down fighting to defend his bunker than to surrender, and would probably have said the same about Fred West. I think that the word has preserved that sense today; if you think that it carries an implicit endorsement of someone’s project, feel free to insert Homeric scare-quotes.

The Asia Times articles The taming of Sadr City and The devastation of Iraq add some perspective.

The US effort to destroy the insurgency in Iraq can only succeed if it also destroys the ability of the Iraqis to govern their own communities – hence the attack on the Sunni stronghold of Fallujah. Yet Sadr City, the vast slum in Baghdad at the heart of the Shi’ite rebellion, has evolved into a virtually independent city-state, a “liberated area” in the classic guerrilla warfare model. Something will have to give. – Michael Schwartz

Are you asking from me a full and definitive answer as to whether Napoleon was a noble or ignoble figure, and further to that, a definitive answer on the epistemological status of the claim “X was noble” where X is Napoleon?

Er …. no. I’m extremely uninterested in Napoleon’s moral status. I was pointing out a problem with your readiness to say that those whom you call the resistance in Iraq are not ignoble qua resisting foreign invasion. To get that conclusion you have to believe that resisting foreign invasion is always not-ignoble considered in itself, in isolation from other features. That kind of atomism is a mistake, as the Frederick West example shows.

I have a soft spot for Bonaparte myself.

I can guess why. He was such an organizer! One might say that Bonaparte’s was the first postmodern government.

Myself, I have a soft spot for the British Empire, and a corresponding grudge against Germany for WWI.

I have a soft spot for Bonaparte myself.

I can guess why. He was such an organizer! One might say that Bonaparte’s was the first postmodern government.

Myself, I have a soft spot for the British Empire, and a corresponding grudge against Germany for WWI.

Interestingly, there surely wouldn’t be elections now if there hadn’t been armed resistance after the period of looting that ended about August, 2003. The Americans were pretty clear about what they wanted, and what pushed them to give in to Sistani’s demand for elections.

Roger makes a good point here; it should be seen in the context though that the al-Mahdi Army is no longer part of the resistance and Sadr has a slate in the elections (he’s not standing himself).

dsquared: I’m sure you’re right in thinking that ‘noble’ has retained some of its Homeric connotations. But that doens’t mean that we use it to make Homeric moral judgements. After all, ancient Greeks might well have thought it noble for a man to beat an uppity wife, but I don’t think we (er, Western liberal enlightenment types) would be inclined to share that judgement. We just wouldn’t regard it as noble. Similarly I certainly wouldn’t regard Fred West as noble in resisting arrest, nor would I regard the torturers and beheaders of civilians in Iraq as noble, even in their resistance to foreign invasion. Would you regard the remnants of the Nazis who resisted the Allies’ attempts to liberate the concentration camps in Germany as noble? If not, then you’re conceding the anti-atomistic line I’m trying to push here.

The Viet Cong overthrew Pol Pot. Was there anything noble about defending them?
Of course times change. but there are still many reasons to prefer the Viet Cong to the Ba’athists. And try replacing ‘nobility’ with ‘bravery.’ I’d say try honor but I doubt that would work either with this audience

Everything about your post is confused, D, except your comments about the IMF. Thanks for that bit of news.

A big shout-out to Daniel for arguing at least somewhat against interest. He may have opposed, and still oppose, the war itself, but recognizes that the dynamics of the situation favor a Coalition victory and the defeat of the insurgency. I think he’s right: if the Coalition (meaning primarily the US) has the political will to stick it out, the insurgency will be defeated and Iraq will become a functioning democracy. Whether or not it will have been ‘worth it’ is a separate question, on which we differ. But in my book, Daniel is leagues ahead of, say, Spencer Ackerman or Andrew Sullivan; the first opposed the war and the second supported it, but both now seem hellbent on turning an odds-on success (however grinding and imperfect) into a far worse catastrophe.

But on the matter of the insurgents themselves: Daniel says

[T]o take up arms against an occupying foreign army is not an ignoble thing to do, and I can quite understand why lots of people on the left have been sympathetic to them.

Perhaps so, but is that what the ‘insurgents’ are doing? Certainly many are, but the bulk of the attacks I read about in the news seem to be assassinations of Iraqi officials and massacres of new Iraqi police and soldiers. Though Coalition soldiers obviously continue to lose their lives to firefights and roadside bombs (over a thousand combat deaths and counting), organized attacks by the insurgency on Coalition soldiers or military assets (like the Mosul mess-hall bombing) seem to be far outnumbered — or at least out-bloodied — by attacks on their fellow Iraqis.

Maybe the insurgents really do rationalize to themselves that killing anyone cooperating with the occupiers is morally the same as fighting the occupation. Maybe they’re just fighting a dirty civil war, occupation or no. Maybe these two are not mutually exclusive. But either way, whatever nobility is inherent in armed resistance, surely a lot bleeds out when most of those you kill are your own countrymen.

There is no sign that either the US military or the Iraqi government has a good idea of how to defeat the insurgency. It seems a little rash to announce its doom.

I don’t believe that the US occupation will ever be accepted by Iraqis. Nor will any Iraqi government that’s the offspring of the occupation.

Well for that matter you could have thought for five minutes about what I might have meant and then decided that since there was a perfectly sensible interpretation, you probably weren’t going to be able to score any points off me. But, no.

“no hope of victory”

Absolutely wrong. Here’s how the insurgents can win:

1) Mount increasingly effective attacks by IEDs and ambush on all supply convoys on the roads. Already 25% of convoys are attacked: recently more powerful IEDs have been destroying Bradleys and tanks.

2) Pull out the approx 7000 missing portable SAMs and start concerted attacks against resupply flights.

The US forces are very effective while they have supplies of ammunition, fuel, food, and clean water. Without any one of those they’re in big trouble. The supply line is long and unsafe, especially vulnerable at bridges. If it fails, we’re looking at a military disaster with thousands dead or captured.

Right and wrong is one thing; the military situation is another thing altogether.

P.P.S. And the valiant attempt at a save by saying “oh I just meant the Greek form of noble” doesn’t quite fly. If you meant Homeric-nobility all along, then perhaps you ought to explain why you (as a direct result of the “not ignoble” principle) “can quite understand why lots of people on the left have been sympathetic to them”. How do you get an equation such as “it’s Homerically-noble => I can understand why many on the left symathize”. What, exactly, do you find particularly “leftist” per se about the ancient-Greek notion of “noble”, one can only wonder? Nothing, of course.

I wasn’t trying to score points, dammit, I was trying to have a discussion and to think about the issue. What you meant was not self-evident. How could it be? People do often use words imprecisely, people do use ‘noble’ as a general hurrah-word – how was I supposed to know you meant Homeric?! I’m not a mind-reader, not even if I spend five minutes thinking about it.

Hmm, yeah, what Blixa said. So that was a late save after all. Interesting.

Gee, sorry I didn’t take five minutes to figure out what you were planning to say later.

That’s actually a pretty good try, *john halasz*, but even if we’re going to all agree that the “insurgents”, and more generally any people who Take Up Arms Against Occupiers, have a certain consistency with which they comport themselves in terms of their own identity-conferring values and normative commitments and the integrity with which they hold to the consequences of those beliefs even though we may violently disagree with the content of those beliefs and the consequences of such comportment,

…that still doesn’t make it any easier to understand why some on the “left” would necessarily “sympathize” with them (lacking other information). Or why dsquared would understand that sympathy as somehow following from their perceived “nobility” as defined by your preceding explanation (an explanation that explicitly disavows any necessity for sympathy).

(Or something. I’m tired now.)

abb1 is perfectly correct. If there were no resistance, there would now be 10 permanent US military bases in Iraq (which we we’d use to invade Syria and Iran – surely there’d be no resistance there, would there?).

By now Ahmed Chalabi would have disappeared his Sunni enemies, accumulated a massive Swiss bank account and ensured we get lots of free Iraqi oil.

Sorry, neocons, but your dreams were always just that – dreams. Time to wake up.

‘Actually, they didn’t resist much to the invasion. They’re resisting the 2-year-long foreign occupation and the intensity of resistance seems to be roughly proportional to the duration. Maybe this could help with this vital ‘non-ignobility’ controversy.’

Good point. As the intensity, the murder of Shia clerics, the car bombings aimed at Shia gatherings, and the beheadings of aid workers, mounts the nature of the insurgents becomes increasingly clear.

It is all so simple, if the US stays Iraq is a puppet like Germany and if elections are held an the US is asked to leave they will have been defeated by insurgents.

A win win situation.

Daniel’s remarks about resisting occupation don’t strike me as constroversial or incorrect. I just think it is silly to pretend that those sympathetic to the insurgents are motivated by anything but the blind anti-Americanism Abb1 so consistently displays.

Richard Cownie:
I agree with you that there are scenarios where the insurgents come to represent a much more substantial threat in the future (of course, it is also easy to envision circumstances where we militarily turn the corner on them as well), but the Dien Bien Phu (DBP) like circumstance that you hint at (thousands captured) just isn’t in the cards. The factors you mention are worrisome, but simply will not be sprung fast enough or in a sufficiently coordinated fashion to do something like that. Not even close. Tet and the attendant situation at Khe Sahn were probably the best chance of something like that happening to us, and the VC and NVA came up short (militarily). The insurgency cannot now, and will not for the forseeable future, be able muster anywhere near as significant a challenge as they did then. There is no part of Iraq where we won’t be able to evacuate in force if we have to do so. Even if they drive out our air presence (and SAMS will hurt us, not stop us), US forces will still be able to move in force out of the affected area. The enemy in Vietnam brought down thousands of helicopters and hundreds and hundreds of support aricraft, and it just wasn’t enough (and the geography there was much tougher, and our supply network far less robust than that of the modern US military). The worst case scenario for us would probably be a consolidation of forces in more defensible positions (of course, I concede that at that point we have ceded much of the country to the insurgents). DBP was a really extraordinary convergence of circumstances, and while some of the same qualitative elements are there in Iraq, quantitatively the situation is very different. I think, however, that the factors you mention could feed a very real Tet like scenario: an offensive that fails militarily but succeeds at finally snapping the will of the median voter to even countenance holding out.

Anti aircraft defenses was much less developed during the Vietnam war than it is now. Stinger like weapons didn’t really exist yet nor had anybody thought about using anti-tankrockets against heli’s. Without those advangements the only way to shoot down a heli by insurgants is with a lot of lead and that requires a lot of men which are than reason enough to use massive air bombardments.

c,
You are correct of course, but tactics and countervailing measures have also evolved allot. But helicopters really aren’t that vulnerable to anti-tank missiles and more general RPGs: our losses in the “Black Hawk Down” incident, for instance, had more to do with the fact that the battlefield was extremely concentrated and our helicopters were caught out for a while in a situation where they essentially had to hover low. That circumstance may be repeated in Iraq, but not enough to make a militarily significant difference in terms of our remaining capabilities. Believe me, if it were that easy to bring down a chopper under typical operational circumstances we would have already seen far greater losses.
Also, you didn’t need that much lead to bring down many Vietnam era choppers under many circumstances: it was the tempting target created by the OH-6A for comparatively small enemy concentrations that made Snake&Loach operations such a good trick. (The OH-6A was robust, but small pockets of enemy could be goaded into taking shots at it b/c they thought their chances of bringing it down were decent). We can do more with tactical measures to offset these developments than I think you give our pilots credit for.

But history has passed them by. Iraq is not Vietnam (or more specifically, Iran is not China) and they have no hope of victory. All they can really do is prolong the occupation and therefore the misery. The time has well past by which anyone with brains in their head could reasonably hope for anything other than swift and reasonably democratic elections, a declaration of victory and for the coalition troops to jump in the tanks, start the engines and stop driving when they see the first McDonalds.

You’re making two false assumptions here. Firstly, that “swift and reasonably democratic” elections are even possible under the occupation and resistance. They’re not; what’s on offer is not a real election but a way of legitimising a Vichy government. A third of the parties banned outright by American fiat? No list of who you’re voting for? No means of confirming the count?

This isn’t an election; it’s a farce.

Given this, a declaration of victory and the Americans driving their tanks out of Iraq IS a victory for the insurgents. The place will probably collapse into civil war within a week, and if the Iraqis are very lucky a theocracy will arise soon thereafter.

But the theocrats will be there, and the Americans will be gone. So the theocrats will proclaim themselves the winners.

Robert:
I was responding to the sentence “But nowadays there are good guys and bad guys and that’s that; and if anyone praises e.g., the courage and discipline of the attackers of the USS Cole, he must figure them for the good guys so he must be a terrsymp.” I thought that you were trying to suggest that we take a one-dimensional, black and white view of the enemy today and question the motives of anyone who does otherwise (which I could agree with) and my only point (assuming at the time that that was what you were trying to say) was that this is true but unexceptional. I think, for instance, that meaningful grudging admiration of the enemy is something that often settles in only in retrospect. I’m sorry I mis-characterized your point, but what were you trying to say with that sentence?

john halasz,

“refusal to countenance” is not the same thing as “taking up arms against”. I think that’s my problem with the “resistance=noble” people; doing the former does not *necessitate* doing the latter, and yet they act like it does.

I don’t blame any Iraqi person one bit for *resenting* the occupation, for example. But the quickest way to end it is to work peacefully w/the occupiers to transition to self rule. The “insurgency” has only the effect of prolonging it.

You accuse (I think) me of a “sheltered consciousness” for asking for sufficient information to render a moral judgment. Yet I have not done so! I am simply noting that sufficient information is lacking, and therefore asking folks like dsquared to refrain from pat, sweeping moral judgments like “resistance can’t be ignoble”. Like hell it can’t.

I agree with you that “sufficient” information is probably unavailable to us all. However, that’s no excuse to limit one’s inquiries to the cartoon exercise of Figuring Out Which One Is The “Occupier” And Which One Is The “Resister” And Declaring The Latter “Noble” (in some weird way) On That Basis Alone. Am I not allowed to wish for *more* information, than that, to be integrated into peoples’ judgments? Oops, there I go again, me and my “sheltered consciousness”.

By the way, Richard, I want to be clear about one thing: I am not saying that the enemy isn’t going to inflict casualties on us or stage spectacular attacks. I agree with you that this will happen. What I am saying is not likely is something like the Varan disaster of the Teutoburger forest or Dien Bien Phu. The enemy simply does not (and will not) have the positional strength to pull that off. And they can hurt us in the air, but our air forces have survived much worse and remained tactically effective.
I got the feeling that the “thousands captured” line in your posts alluded to something along these lines. That is what I was responding to.

The Aeneid: touchstone for progressives! Who can forget Chomsky’s magnificence in dragging Kissinger’s body around the walls of Troy?

This has been a Comedy Classic. The only downside: it distracted the thread from mw’s feeling (and acute) “oh brother” above. Another slipperiness in dsquared’s post that merits attention.

As a late addition in the vein of Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, let me recall the film Die Brücke, in which a platoon of German teenagers defends a bridge against the invading American army at the end of World War II. Their efforts are undoubtably heroic, no matter how futile or pointless.

With respect to Iraq, the last survey I saw counted coalition forces killing twice as many Iraqis as the insurgents. Is there any reason to think this ratio has changed recently?

The Vietnamese managed to kill almost as many Cambodians as the Khmer Rouge during their occupation…

I didn’t know that. Could you post a link, please.

BigMacAttack:
I just think it is silly to pretend that those sympathetic to the insurgents are motivated by anything but the blind anti-Americanism Abb1 so consistently displays.

And I thought you were one of more reasonable here. Well, don’t forget my anti-Semitism too.

And as far as nobility/sympathy goes, I don’t think anyone mentioned here that some people just tend to root for the underdog. David and Goliath kinda thing, you know. Defiant courage of the underdog has a powerful appeal. Well, for some of us, at least; others always root for the Home Team.

Hey Blixa
And I hate to keep bringing this up but what about the likes of Mr. Zarqawi. How exactly is he “fighting for his country”? Particularly since, I hasten to add, Iraq is not “his country” in any sense that I can see. Ditto for any Yemenis, Syrians, Saudis, Jordanians, Iranians, etc etc who may be there. “Fighting for their country”, is it?

1980, the USSR invades Afghanistan, installs puppet government. Freedom-loving Afghan mujahideen and brave volunteers from all over the Muslim world organize a resistance. They cut heads, blow up tanks with IEDs, terrorize and kill collaborators.

Did you feel the same way back then? I know I wanted the resistance to drive the Soviets out, what about you? You probably hated those Islamofascist savages, didn’t you?

At a political as opposed to personal level, the insurgency deserves no outside sympathy, since there is no apparent constructive political program attached to it.

Constructive political program is right there, all over of it. It’s called ‘anti-colonial struggle’. How you could miss it – I don’t know; you must’ve tried real hard.

Is that to the same tune as “You noble Diggers all, stand up now”? That’s how it’s playing in my head…

They have no hope of victory. All they can really do is prolong the occupation and therefore the misery.
First of all, US troops would certainly not leave Iraq if it was all quiet with a nice cudly puppet government in place. They would stay there for the next 50 years.
And then define victory.
Go all the way to Washington and get a USS Missouri moment from whoever is at that time the President of the then defeated United States of America ? Of course not, but the US didn’t loose the Vietnam War in that definition. They simply withdrew and lost all influence in the region for the next twenty years.
The Iraqi insurgents are well on their way to achieve a similar result in the Arab world. Turn Iraq in a meat grinder for USians on the ground, force them to withdraw and, in the process, shatter the credibility of the US military in the whole region. And that would be quite a result as the fear inspired by US power is what motivates most local potentates to ally themselves, for their own protection, with a country which is universally despised by their populations. If the USA loose that aura of strength, they will find themselves without any friend in the region. This loss of influence would be an enormous blow and open the door to other powers, China first of all.
Probably, most insurgents don’t take the long view but their goal is to humiliate the USA in retreat and it’s working rather well if you believe the corridor noises on the Hill. Cutting and running is becoming fashionable in Washington. Whether this is wrapped in a democratic election won’t make a lot of difference. No matter the result, Iraq will descend in civil war. And that’s clear victory for the insurgents.

“It’s exactly the opposite. If there is no resistance American troops will never leave – why would they? ”

abb1, the US will never leave, even when most troops are out, no matter how much resistance there is.

But the existence of an insurgency, of a terrorist nature to boot, is what justifies not only the military presence today but also retroactively the war itself. It’s become the main justification for war. See, there’s terrorists, we were right to go there after all! Wonderfully circular reasoning which conveniently forgets there were _no_ terrorists _before_ the war. But what matters is that now there are, so we need to stay there. That’s the official position of Bush, Blair, and the rest of them. So paradoxically the fact more terrorists are being created is no longer a fault of the strategy, it’s become a validation of it. You have to admire how it works!

The lacuna that I see in Mr. McDougall’s analysis is that it overlooks the fact that, however imperfect it may be, there is a participatory political process available in Iraq. Personally, I think it’s a tenuous assumption that the various insurgents are fighting for recognizable communities, as opposed to simply seeking power for the leader of their particular armed band. Even if we grant that assumption, however, these groups are still seeking despotic rather than democratic authority, and I believe that to be adequate grounds in this case for denouncing them all, both on a political and a personal level.

they [the Nazis] showed less ignobility by standing firm and fighting for their corrupt ideals than they would have done by surrendering. I’ll even spot you that my favourite Nuremberg defendant is Goering, for committing suicide rather than allowing the tribunal to execute him.

Wow, dsquared is defending the death marches – this is just abhorrent.

I suggest you take a good look at this site and especially click the link entitled “Personal stories” (Realplayer required) to listen to the stories of survivors. All of this happened because the Nazis in charge were oh so nobly standing firm and fighting for their corrupt ideals, which – needless to say – included the extermination of Jews.

And your favourite Nuremberg defendant is that despicable, cynical swine Goering, for committing suicide rather than facing his well deserved punishment. Not von Weizsäcker or von Papen, whose guilt was comparatively small, nor Albert Speer or Hans Frank, who showed at least some remorse (the latter saying “A thousand years will pass and the guilt of Germany will not be erased”), but the unrepentant Goering, co-architect of the “Final Solution”.

I urge the powers that be at Crooked Timber to take note…

peter: I hope you’re right. However, in those past conflicts we had much larger forces available. In Iraq we have about 150000 total, but with the tooth-to-tail ratio probably only about 30-50K of those are fully trained for combat (rather than being cooks, mechanics, truck drivers etc – obviously in a pinch everyone can fire an M16, but you wouldn’t send those guys and gals to assault Fallujah).

US military doctrine and planning seems to have placed a heavy emphasis on firepower and mobility, rather than numbers. So we’ve ended up with numerically small forces which are capable of rapid movement (as long as they have fuel) and heavy and accurate fire (as long as they have ammunition).
I think this is very different from what we had in Vietnam, so I doubt we can take much comfort from that.

The especially discouraging feature of Iraq is that weapons are ubiquitous – it’s a country of 25M people where almost everyone has an AK47, grenades are cheap, RPGs are common. And apparently explosives capable of destroying heavy armor are now surfacing. If just 0.25% of Iraqis decide to join the insurgency, you could suddenly be facing 60K well-armed attackers.

Perhaps most worryingly, the C-in-C and the DoD appear disconnected from reality and unwilling to listen to any bad news. That in particular could lead us to postpone any retreats even when the military and logistical situation is very dangerous.

X said “But to take a very real example as comparison, the same mujahedeens who are now fighting the US were fighting for the US in Afghanistan against the Soviets, as the foreign occupying power.”

So you’ve tallied names against the Official List of the mujahedeen in Afghanistan? Before posting this garbage any more you should offer a refutation of the CIA’s insistence that the non-Afghani mujahedeen where under the influence of Saudi instead of the US. I’m sure you can given how you are never prone to assume anything and are solidly grounded in the world of verifiable facts. For your refutation to be taken seriously it should also offer your understanding of what groups made up the “mujahedeen” in Soviet invaded Afghanistan.

I’d respond myself, but I’ve had this discussion with you before.

I look forward to the sound of crickets.

Hektor:

Whatever you think about the Viet Cong, they did have vast popular support.

I don’t agree with this. The VietCong didn’t have all that much popular support, not in the South.

“And there’s where the discussion hits the wall: I don’t believe for one second that the occupiers give a rat’s ass about Iraqi “self rule.””

Yes, that’s definately where this discussion goes off the rails; This tendency on the left to hold the malevolence of the Bush administration as such an unshakable premise, that somebody can toss a bomb into a line of people volunteering to join the Iraqi police force, and you’ll see it as an act of heroism, just because the administration wants them to have a police force.

Sorry about the double post. Didn’t seem to “take” the first time.

How is Uncle K’s belief in the malevolency of the current administration — leaving aside the question of this belief’s straw/not straw status — differ from Brett’s belief in Uncle K’s malevolency, as evidenced by Brett’s statement that “[Uncle K] will see [the bombing of Iraqi police recruits] as an act of heroism”?

Well… Uncle K bases his belief on his reading of the historical record of the administration’s actions. Brett bases his belief on his reading of Uncle K’s posts and (I am presuming, since Uncle K said nowhere that the bombing of Iraqi police recruits was a historic act) the posts of other people who Brett believes somehow to be associated with Uncle K. I will leave it to the reader to decide which belief has a firmer basis in reality.

D’oh!!! “heroic” somehow became “historic’ the second time I typed it. This was not intentional. Please make the appropriate correction as you read my previous post.

abbone,
You said “And second, those US soldiers are officially there to defend Germany against communism.” Is that so? Atop the bob-wired gates of the US military bases sit plaques enscribed with those words? Might those bases have to do more with NATO agreements?

Perhaps they teach a more revisionist version of history accross the pond and they leave out the events that brought the US to Europe and the events which caused the US to remain. Just keep in mind that up until 1989, for every US tank in W. Germany, there were 20 Soviet tanks in E. Germany. US military doctrine wasn’t could they stop the USSR, but how many *weeks* could they hold Erope before it fell.

And being accross the pond, you might not be in tune with the conservatives of America. But there is a strong pull to stop wasting money keeping soldiers in places like Germany. There is no need for it, and it wastes cash. Those bases remain out of outdated treaties and international politics to keep the welfare coming (in the form of free defense).

America is going bankrupt. The insurgent resistance to American Imperialism is costing the USA $100+ billion a year and is destroying the military machinery at a pretty rapid rate.

The demoralization of the imperial storm troopers is causing suicides, mass or serial murder and other problems at home, note the lastest gun battle between a 19 year old Marine and the cops or the three Marines gunning at each other in heavy traffic in NC.

It will get worse and worse as the rage of the troops who are committing war crimes turns home again just like when Tim McVeigh decided to blow up the Federal Building…etc.

We are seriously doomed.

All of this has come to pass before (remember Vietnam?) and we muddled through just fine.

Yeah. A couple of million Vietnamese died, but only 50,000 Americans, so at the end of the day it’s no biggie.

peter: thanks for your very reasonable response.

As you say, the tooth-to-tail ratio has always been low. What is different is that in WW2 we had a total force of maybe 2M in Europe;
in Vietnam we had approx 500K; in Iraq we have only 150K. So the absolute numbers are frighteningly low – such small numbers of front-line troops will be quickly overwhelmed if they lose the tactical edge given by firepower and mobility. If they run low on ammunition or fuel, it’s over very quickly.

Dien Bien Phu was a terrible miscalculation by the French – they thought it was impossible for Vietnamese to get artillery there, and they were just wrong. Not a close analogy, though it does give some indication of the difficulty of supplying a large force by air (even before the existence of SAMs)

Recent analysis of the casualty figures suggests that while we aren’t suffering a lot of deaths (thanks to body armor and unprecedented medical support), the ratio of insurgent casualties to US casualties is about 4:1 or 5:1.
At those rates it seems possible that the insurgency is growing whereas we are losing front-line strength (probably 600-1200 per month), as we are stretched thinner local defeats become quite likely.

x,

abb1, the US will never leave, even when most troops are out, no matter how much resistance there is.

But the existence of an insurgency, of a terrorist nature to boot, is what justifies not only the military presence today but also retroactively the war itself. It’s become the main justification for war.

I don’t think making them run out of excuses is a plausible strategy, they have a number ‘think-tanks’ creating and testing various talking points as we speak.

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States . . . .”

Well, why bother with nobility titles when property titles are more effective?

DSW

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States . . . .”

Well, why bother with nobility titles when property titles are more effective?

DSW

“To think that the Bush administration (or any other administration) is pursuing any other goals than advancing interests of its main constituency would be nothing but a loony conspiracy theory.

That’s why this talk about US government being so concerned about Iraqi democracy sounds so silly.”

But you’re missing the point: The Bush administration, as a result of 9-11, came to the conclusion that “rogue” governments were an intolerable danger to the American people. And has set about a long term strategy to replace them with less dangerous governments, ideally democracies. NOT because it’s good for the people living in those countries, that’s just a bonus. Because if those countries become democracies, they’ll be less of a danger to US.

So wanting Iraq to become a democracy IS pursuing the interests of Republican constituencies.

But you’re missing the point: The Bush administration, as a result of 9-11, came to the conclusion that “rogue” governments were an intolerable danger to the American people.

One teensy problem: in the case of Iraq, that conclusion was not based in reality. Therefore, in order to rationalize the war, they sold their “conclusion” to the American people with trumped-up “evidence” and out-and-out lies. And in the process of invading a country that, in fact, posed no threat to the United States whatsoever, as the article I cited above points out, they’ve actually created a greater long-term threat in the form of a breeding ground for more terrorists.

Now, what exactly is the point that we’re missing, Brett?

A few responses, probably late, probably will not be noticed, but whatever.

*trickster paean*

“Well, George Washington fought and killed his countrymen, betrayed his country, and was a founder of another one.”

Correct. Now, was the end state superior to the prior state? And is that what the insurgents, if successful, will achieve? Also, generally speaking what tactics did Washington employ – and in particular, were things such as marketplace slaughters of random civilians generally among them? What I’m saying is that (to not sound silly) you have to actually do the boring, annoying grunt work of looking at details. Perhaps the “resistance is not ignoble” principle stems from sheer laziness, a reluctance to have to think about things like details. So boring! Can’t there just be a hard and fast general rule, like “resisting occupation = noble”, that we can slap on every single situation and be done with it? (Says the undergrad in his dorm room….)

“I can easily see how someone might view an election worker as a traitor to one’s country.”

This statement almost speaks for itself. And yet, it says less than it appears to, I suppose. Sure, I too can see how someone might view an election worker as a traitor. If that someone is a fascist, for example. By the same token, I can see how someone might view a short skirt as an invitation to rape – if that someone is a rapist. Have we learned anything?

“How about… Pressing a button to send a bomb into a row of houses where “insurgents” are staying? …”

How about it? Have I ever called doing that “noble” (or more passively “not ignoble”)? What exactly did you think this argued against?

*abb1*

“Freedom-loving Afghan mujahideen and brave volunteers from all over the Muslim world organize a resistance. They cut heads, blow up tanks with IEDs, terrorize and kill collaborators. Did you feel the same way back then?”

No. I was basically too young to feel one way or the other about Afghan mujahideen. In hindsight I can see that one of them was OBL and to me that speaks for itself.

“I know I wanted the resistance to drive the Soviets out, what about you?”

Yes. Me too, at least in retrospect. It is possible (and, I would say, less puerile) to root for this occurrence out of realpolitik, without taking the extra step of deluding oneself into thinking that they are by nature “noble”.

Getting back to the Iraq situation, it’s even dumber than that, because seemingly we have people who *don’t* root for the Iraq insurgents and yet still feel some kind of emotional need to stake out a claim that what they are doing ought to be thought of as noble.

Of course, maybe in some cases the people saying this do root for the Iraq insurgents, which would explain this impulse a bit better….

*robert macdougall*

“I don’t make any moral differentiation between them based on how they define the country and community they’re fighting for”

That’s an error IMHO. Do you make a moral differentiation between people in the 1940s who perceived themselves to be fighting for “The Aryans”, as opposed to those who may have perceived themselves to be fighting for some town they lived in or whatever? How about Klansmen who took up arms in “defence” of the “white community”?

“It seems to me entirely normal both to loath the cruelty at one end of the spectrum and the courage at the other”

Indeed! And that is precisely what I am asking for! Instead of tossing a blanket “not ignoble” judgment over the whole lot based *solely* on the Resisting Occupiers label, *make distinctions*. Use your brain. Yes! If only others would do the same. Understand my frustration now?

“it seems best to avoid holistic moral judgements on the insurgency and to judge each action on its own merits”

HALLELUJAH! Preach it! Was it not clear that this was my point all along? “Resisting occupation is not ignoble” is a holistic moral judgement about virtually each and every person currently killin’ people in Iraq. (Even more offensive, it is an assertion or a concession that all of their acts are “resisting occupation”…)

“I don’t assume that J. Random Ahmed found dead with an AK-47 in his hand in Fallujah was necessarily fighting for all the worst deeds of the Zarqawi group.”

And neither ought you assume that he was “fighting for his country”, “resisting occupation”, or that he demonstrated any “courage”. Right?

“it seems probably that many of the opposed individuals have taken up arms in defence of (variously defined) country and community”

Sigh. I don’t know how you get there at all. Some fraction of them are taking up arms because they like the idea of killing Westerners and/or infidels, and that’s about it. Some fraction consists of simple psychopaths. Some fraction consists of run of the mill criminals. (Some fraction has committed attacks because of threats to them, or their families.) You have very little idea how large or small these fractions may be, any more than I do. Of course, perhaps even for these fractions, whatever impulse is driving could be (by squinting one’s eyes) spun as “taking up arms in defence of their community”. For example, killing random white infidels = “defending the Arab-Muslim Community”. Just as what the Nazis were doing could be spun as “taking up arms in defence of the Aryan Community”.

But no one whose moral compass isn’t on the fritz would insist that others cannot make a moral distinction between that sort of “community defence” and any others!

“At a personal level (on the basis of some fairly old-fashioned attitudes), this seems to me more admirable than despicable.”

Regardless of the “community” and what they do in “defence” of it? That is warped. Which is my point. *details matter*! Is this just laziness that makes people want to be able to make judgments about what’s admirable and what’s despicable based solely on the most vague, general outlines of the situation?

“We know that various insurgents have committed various despicable acts; needless to say, contempt rightly attaches to the groups and individuals that commit them, where these are known.”

Apparently it’s not needless to say, because people, including yourself, keep paradoxically insisting that something uniformly “not ignoble” attaches to what they all are doing – making no distinctions. Unless I’m misreading.

“At a political as opposed to personal level, the insurgency deserves no outside sympathy, since there is no apparent constructive political program attached to it. Which, as it happens, seems fairly close to what dsquared was saying in the first place.”

I confess not to really know what dsquared thought his point was, at this point. I’m not sure I understand this distinction you’re making between a “personal level” and a “political level” of judgment; if enough people sympathize on a “personal level”, this will naturally translate into sympathy on a “political level” will it not? Hence my annoyance with the personal level-sympathy people.

*uncle kvetch*

“And there’s where the discussion hits the wall: I don’t believe for one second that the occupiers give a rat’s ass about Iraqi “self rule.””

The discussion does hit a wall consisting of that belief of yours, yes. Thanks for sharing that belief anyway.

I’m looking forward to the sound of frogs in Iraq, water and tree.

Germany, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, Poland.

Pinochet, Marcos, Duvalier, Somoza, Karimov, Pahlavi. Your turn.

Well, now that’s changing. Official US policy is now to promote democracy in the Middle East.

Yes…and every photo from Abu Ghraib, every flattened city, every 500-pound bomb accidentally dropped on the wrong house, brings us one step closer to that goal.

The error of this post starts with “… but for all that, to take up arms against an occupying foreign army…”

The Baath fascists are killing their own people in an attempt to reestablish (it seems) the old regime. Killing Americans is somewhat of a sideshow and only important so that the election will either be called off or appear illegitimate. They are reactionary forces who deserve no sympathy or respect. If they were true Iraqi patriots they would simply go vote later this month.

Pinochet, Marcos, Duvalier, Somoza, Karimov, Pahlavi. Your turn.

I’m not going to dispute any of that. (Well, almost any of it. The US gets more grief than it deserves for Uzbekistan. Last year, the US withdrew the bulk of the discretionary assistance we had been providing the Karimov government, for insufficient progress on human rights etc. He promptly asked for it — and got it — from the Russians.) We’ve supported some pretty ugly thugs, no question. (And you left out Mobutu Sese Seko, but maybe you were saving him for the next round.) That’s why I said that at our best, we work for the greater good because it redounds to our own benefit. Unfortunately we’ve departed from that standard early and often. That we are coming back to our better instincts now — embracing our inner Wilson, tossing out the Scowcrofts and Kissingers — is nice to see.

Besides, the bar I set was not the Netherlands, but ‘other superpowers.’ Every empire, including the US, sets up puppet governments in its vassal states, which are as a rule cruel and unrepresentative. How many invest so much of their own blood and treasure building healthy and representative states? The American innovation is to recognize (occasionally) that the latter are actually better allies than the former.

It’s nice, George, you have nice, wholesome thoughts, good for you. It’s good for your appetite, digestion and for the sound sleep. Try to avoid eating raw tomatoes after 9pm, though.

I don’t expect you to agree with me. (If I claimed the sky was blue, abb1, you’d dispute it.) I’m trying to demonstrate that even if (shocker!) the US did not invade Iraq purely out of altruistic concern for the Iraqi people, that doesn’t mean our overall goals do not include a better future for them.

The United States has a history of killing foriegn colored people who disagree with them, today is no different.

George, you sound like a pedophile priest telling his victims that they should feel blessed that Jefferie Daumer didn’t get to them because he rapes and kills and eats young boys…now bend over.

> What I think distinguished the US
> from other superpowers of memory
> (with the possible exception of the
> British) is that our foreign
> policy is, at its best, animated by
> enlightened self interest, not
> merely self interest. We prosper
> when others prosper; hence our
> interest in promoting stable,
> healthy and liberal states,

George,
What percentage of the rest of the world’s citizens do you estimate shares that view of the United States? Do their voices count for anything?

Cranky

Honor and nobilty seem like more excuses to violate God’s laws and just murder and kill and steal your little hearts out!!!

——————————-

Sword of honour (The ancient code of insult and revenge in America’s South)

Paul Robinson on the ancient code of insult and revenge that is still prevalent in the American South

Southern Honor

—————————–

Sword of Honour (The Ancient Code of Insult & Revenge in the Arab World)

The downside of using humiliation against a man whose life revolves around his honor is that he is thereafter bound to hate you, and to someday take his revenge. I wonder how many of the “insurgents” who have blown up so many US troops had been “controlled” this way in Abu Ghuraib or elsewhere.

posted by Juan @ 12/6/2004 06:10:52 AM

Roger, I don’t disagree with much of what you say (though some of it I don’t quite follow, particularly the Iraq-Iran stuff). You can find plenty of bad stuff in the history of US foreign policy — even in the past 60 years — that makes us look pretty bad. But I still say the US is perhaps the only superpower of the modern era that occasionally, even erratically, recognizes the value of — and has been successful at — what has recently become known as nation-building. Your point about whether we still have the attention span we did in the post-WWII era is reasonable; I guess we’re going to find out. But 60 million Americans (less those who voted solely on gay marriage) saw fit to give Bush another four years to see this project through, despite how rough it’s been so far. I’ll bet a lot of people, in the US and around the world, were pretty surprised by that.

(Jimmy Carter, incidentally, is a good and decent person who doesn’t deserve the ridicule he often gets. In retrospect, it’s clear he suffers from the same delusion that Clinton did: the belief that everyone else in the world is at heart a good and decent person. But just because I’m a neocon doesn’t mean I hate either one.)

cranky: I don’t know and it doesn’t really matter to me. Memories are short; twice in the last century, the US fought far from its own soil to keep France free — the second time, in a war the French themselves could barely be bothered to fight — and look what gratitude that’s gotten us. Whatever debt we Americans owed France from our own War of Independence, it’s been repaid, with interest.

neoamerican: what the hell are you babbling about?

Wow. It’s really ugly in here. Too many leftists parroting Pitchfork Pat Buchanon. Hint: when you sound just like Pitchfork Pat it’s a sign you’re wrong. Heck we even have folks admiring Goering.

Indisputable fact: Saddam ran Iraq like a frickin abbatoir, killing and oppressing anyone who was not a Sunni Baathist; and reigning with terror.

It’s absolutely right that we could have chosen NOT to invade Iraq; but that just pushed the troop problem around to Saudi and Kuwait and Oman and Qatar. Plus gave the initiative to Saddam who was unpredictable and had no moderating superpower leash.

Saddam could have avoided war by allowing the inspectors in, instead he chose War by not believing Bush was serious post 9/11 and thinking his payoffs to Chirac, Schroeder, and Putin plus China would stop Bush. He gambled and lost; everyone paid.

Iraq today is in the throes of a slow motion civil war which would have been inevitable when Saddam died. The Shias and Kurds would not be oppressed forever, and the prospect of Uday or Qusay was even worse than Saddam. We have a deal with the Shia and Kurds; so they are not attacking us; only 22% of the population, the Sunnis are.

The US military does not possess the initiative; the terrorists can set the time and place of the ambush; but their only weapons are assault rifles, RPGs, IEDs, and some machine guns. We have on call close air support, A-10 warthogs; “Spooky” aka the flying artillery base; plus arty. The amount of damage we can do is simply awe-inspiring; no guerrilla force can stand against it. SAMs and stingers don’t work against a JDAM released from 10 miles away by a supersonic fighter-bomber flying at 25K feet. Plus of course we have Wild Weasels to jam the real SAMs.

The terrorists weak point is the NCO level; it takes skill and leadership to mount an ambush where most of your guys don’t get killed against this firepower, not to mention the technical expertise needed to wire up an IED. We are currently killing off a lot of these guys; aided by Sunnis who are tired of this crap and want to get on with their lives (they know Saddam lost and ain’t coming back).

Terrorists can mount ambushes, but quick response by air can wipe them out quick, if it’s anything but an IED and “run away.” THOSE type of attacks are bigger in scope but fewer in number, suggesting that the NCO corps is being wiped out.

Mogadishu points out the lethality of the US military. With NO aircover to speak of (no A-10s, no JDAMS and close air support, no C47 Spookies, just a few vulnerable helicopters) the Army’s very small force (around 100 men) fought off and killed more than 1000 dead out of an opponent probably numbering in the several thousands. Basically, Roarke’s Drift.

In Iraq, we have aircover available for almost anything, with incredible lethality.

But, far too many here seem to hate America, love tyranny and murder, and want us to lose. Sigh.

And when he did his sins he was a warm friend to Reagan…you do not get to chose the time and place and geo=politicaly clever time to obey objective, transcended laws…moral laws are not subject to your fears and prejudices…you wanted to kill thousands of arabs and followers of Islam because you were bitch-slapped on 9-11 and could not go after a revolutionary from Saudi Arabia, so you still needed oil and save some honor…so you used Hussein as the excuse to rape and kill other men…you did it in the name of a political theory conserning representitive government and the sinns of the Iraqi people’s leader…you lied to killl thousands of Iraqis….there has been more death and chaos since you came and you still believe children should feel blessed that a priest raped them instead of a maniac.

jeez, no wonder you are losing Iraq.

But 60 million Americans (less those who voted solely on gay marriage) saw fit to give Bush another four years to see this project through, despite how rough it’s been so far.

A goodly number of those voters did so on the basis of patent falsehoods: that Saddam had WMDs, and that he was directly involved in 9/11. Both falsehoods that were skillfully perpetuated by the Bush administration. For people who are supposedly so concerned about democracy, you neocons are awfully sanguine about a government that lies through its teeth.

Never mind the fact that the project hasn’t been all that “rough” for the overwhelming majority of American people (i.e., those who aren’t in the military and don’t have immediate family who are).

Kvetch, I’ve read plenty of your comments, you’re an intelligent guy and I don’t necessarily disagree with your worldview. (Not all commentors fit that description.) But just because I’m in an adversarial mood:

A goodly number of those voters did so on the basis of patent falsehoods

So what? I’m sure plenty of people voted against Bush based on falsehoods — like, for instance, that he invaded Iraq for oil. Furthermore, there’s quite a difference between a falsehood and a lie. Here is the truth status of these various claims:

* Saddam had active WMD programs at the time we invaded — almost certainly false
* Saddam was directly involved in 9/11 — no evidence
* The Bush White House claimed that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11 — false

A lie is when you *knowingly* present a falsehood as the truth. If you have evidence that Bush or Cheney or anybody else knew for a fact that Saddam had no active WMD programs in 2003, at the time they were saying he did, let’s see it. Otherwise the most that can be said is that they were wrong — which they clearly were on that point. Nearly everybody was.

9/11, on the other hand…it’s true that there’s a sizable chunk of Americans who do believe that Saddam was behind it, and another chunk that thinks there’s a “significant chance” he was behind it. At one point, I think a majority held one of these opinions. But the White House has *never* said that Saddam was behind 9/11. Now, they often lumped Saddam into the same group as bin Laden as the type of dangerous unaccountable threat to world peace that could no longer be tolerated after 9/11, but that’s a lot different than saying he did it. They were pretty clear that he didn’t.

I note that you didn’t actually come out and explicitly say that Bush blamed Saddam for 9/11, which would of course be false. But had a Republican “skillfully perpetuated” a similar falsehood, I know what you would call it.

Just offhand, your last point is maybe not such a fruitful line of argument, since of those Americans who *are* closest to Iraq — the military and their families — my understanding is that Bush won by a landslide.

Bush was ready to call it all off if Saddam and his sons left Iraq, remember?

Ummm, no.

It’s useful, and in fact necessary, to be able to differentiate between the propaganda points of this or that speech and the overall drift of a government’s actual policy. If you seriously believe that Bush would have sent the American army home the moment he got a communique that “Saddam has left the building,” I’d have to say you’re tragically naive; Administration flacks were talking for weeks and months before the invasion about a thoroughgoing social engineering project in Iraq called “de-Baathification,” which had nothing to do with Saddam. It was clear that those troops, and their war, were not going anywhere.

Of course, they would rather have been welcomed as “liberators” by cheering crowds then have had to fight even the paltry two-week battle that ensued; such was the now-infamous “cakewalk” dream. But that had nothing to do with calling it all off if Saddam left.

And when he didn’t, they tried — a couple of times I think — to get him in a precision strike, before any troops crossed the border.

The “precision strikes” on his empty palaces took place during the “Shock and Awe” bombing, and were meant as a showpiece of American military tech, not a quick way out of deploying troops.

And believe it or not, there are lots and lots of Iraqis (possibly a majority, though I don’t recall)who to this day still say it was all worthwhile to get rid of Saddam.

In the last opinion poll the US conducted, 80% of Iraqis expressed no confidence in the “coalition,” but did express confidence in Moqtada al-Sadr, at that time involved in a deadly struggle with American troops. If that looks to you like a populace whose “majority” thought it was “all worthwhile to get rid of Saddam,” then we’ll be agreeing to disagree… ;-)

Recent (I think this week) statement by the U.S. embassy spokesman in Iraq when asked about a timetable for withdrawal:

“They’re perfectly aware of what our position is and that is that we will stay in Iraq for as long as necessary but not a day longer. We’re not prepared at this time to establish a date for our withdrawal.”

In other words, we will occupy their country as long as we want. This is straight up colonialism. The fact that we have sometimes been nice colonialists (although sometimes we have been nasty ones) is not sufficient recompense for taking control of somebody else’s country. Guerilla war and civil war are nasty business, and the Iraqi resistance appears to be unusually nasty even for that. But if we want something better and different to emerge we need to offer the Iraqis back their freedom.

The statements by Brett Bellmore and other neoconservatives above show the complete inability of neoconservatives to understand or imagine the world from anyone’s perspective other than a blinkered American suburbanite. In our “good war” the U.S. killed several million Japanese civilians because they sank some of our ships and wanted to take over as the main power in the Pacific. Yet here we are wanting to occupy and control Iraq itself and the response of the Iraqi resistance shows that they are an evil without parallel since Pol Pot etc.

Getting a bit warm in here.

abb1: Thanks for criticising from the other side, it gives a gives a nice cosy feeling.

. . . the insurgency deserves no outside sympathy, since there is no apparent constructive political program attached to it.

Constructive political program is right there, all over of it. It’s called ‘anti-colonial struggle’.

No, that’s a negative program. Maybe sometimes that’s sufficient, just throw the invaders out and get back to what you were doing. But not this time. “Anti-colonial struggle” hasn’t won over the Shiite majority, they prefer “Wait a few days for the occupiers to transfer power to us”. That leaves the insurgents with a choice of two programs, Sunni Arab secession or restoration of Sunni Arab dominance, neither of which deserves support.

[One could also argue — I guess dsquared would — that they’re so far from success that any programs they may have are irrelevant. I think there’s some merit in that but I don’t want to rely on it.]

Tom T.: Thing I like about your comment is it illuminates one of the mechanisms I think behind the current delegitimization of nationalism, democracy equals freedom so put down your gun and vote already. So I think you’re writing from close to the centre of the new orthodoxy, and I have no expectation of persuading you against it. I’ll try however to explain why I’m not in turn persuaded (some of this is unabashedly Iraq-irrelevant; I think the new anti-nationalism is an interesting topic in itself):

* First, democracy is not generally sufficient. The southern Sudanese would be well advised to take their independence regardless of the form of government in Khartoum. The troubles of the Irian Jayans are as grave as those of the Tibetans, though Indonesia is a democracy and China a despotism.

* You say the insurgents are “seeking despotic rather than democratic authority”. Every independence struggle between the fall of Athens and the American War of Independence, insofar as it sought authority, sought non-democratic authority; does that mean they were all illegitimate? A better conclusion is that even without democracy there’s something worth fighting for.

* Unlike you I incline to the view that main motive driving recruitment to the insurgency is anger against (the conduct of) the occupation, and that many of the insurgents especially at the lower levels have no program beyond the one abb1 declares sufficient, “throw the invaders out”. (The evidence for and against would be a good subject for discussion if time could be found.) It may be the case that the best remedy is to lie back, stop struggling, and try to relax; if so those insurgents are misguided, nothing more.

LAWS&CRIMES 1 of 2

This focuses on the legality of the invasion, and the history of some of the applicable rules. The main article was written before the war, but the law hasn’t changed.

A Supreme International Crime – Any Member of a Government Backing an Aggressive War Will Be Open to Prosecution

Mark Littman March 10, 2003
UK Guardian accessed at Common Dreams

“The threatened war against Iraq will be a breach of the United Nations Charter and hence of international law unless it is authorized by a new and unambiguous resolution of the security council. The Charter is clear. No such war is permitted unless it is in self-defense or authorized by the security council.”
————————————————————————————
Charter of the United Nations

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
[…]

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

——————————————————————————————-
“Self-defense has no application here. Neither the United States nor the UK, nor any of their allies, is under attack or any threat of immediate attack by Iraq.

“In the absence of such a resolution, the attack would, be unlawful…

“What would be the consequences of such illegality? Most obvious would be the human, economic and environmental costs, including any further violence that a war against Iraq might trigger. An illustration of how unpredictable and incalculable such costs might be is furnished by a recollection of the events of [August] 1914. ….. Who can say with certainty where today’s threatened war might lead?

“A second consequence would be of immense world significance, for it would mean the end of the United Nations and with it the final collapse of the efforts of the past century to create effective international institutions that would replace perpetual war with perpetual peace. If attempts to create such international institutions were abandoned, the clock would be turned back to a time when nations had to depend for their security on the uncertain and shifting patterns of alliances and their own military defenses.”
———————————————————————————–

Tufts-Fletcher-News
The US and the UN: a (Surprising) Historical Perspective

“The driving force behind the UN’s creation in 1945 was in fact the United States.

“The story of the San Francisco conference that led to the UN’s creation is told by Steven Schlesinger in his recently published book, Act of Creation. ….Schlesinger said….that the central figure in the UN’s formation was Franklin Roosevelt: “He [a]..vision that if America was to survive the Second World War, there had to be an international security organization that would come out of it. Otherwise, the war was in a sense a fruitless effort.”

“Seeking to replace the failed League of Nations, Roosevelt secretly instructed the State Department in 1939 to begin working on a new international organization…He insisted on key changes from the League of Nations, such as reducing the universal veto power to the five most powerful countries (France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Russia and China) and making the Security Council’s decisions to take action binding on all member states. [The] State Department ….prepared the draft of the UN Charter….[According to] Shlesinger…Roosevelt “realized that power alone was not enough. Our security rested in working with all the other nations of the world in a common enterprise[.]”

“When Roosevelt died thirteen days before the San Francisco conference, the fate of the UN fell to [his successor] Harry Truman.” … Truman also dedicated himself to making the conference happen, and stayed in close contact with the US delegation during the…. nine week[] of the conference[, which]..was extremely “disputatious,” [but ended with] the successful ….of the UN Charter in June, 1945.”

——————————————————————————

“A third consequence might be grave for members of the governments that brought about this unlawful war. The United Nations Charter is a treaty, one to which 192 out of a total of 196 sovereign states in the world are parties. It takes precedence over all other treaties.

“At the Nuremberg trials, the principles of international law identified by the tribunal and subsequently accepted unanimously by the General Assembly of the United Nations included that the planning, preparation or initiation of a war contrary to the terms of an international treaty was “a crime against peace”. The tribunal further stated “that to initiate a war of aggression… is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime”.

“It was for this crime that the German foreign minister Von Ribbentrop was tried, convicted and hanged. This case and the subsequent case of former Chilean president Pinochet show that it is not only governments but also individuals who can be held responsible for such a crime. Jurisdiction to try such a crime is not, for the foreseeable future, within the scope of the new International Criminal Court. It is, however, open to any country in the world to accept such jurisdiction.

“Some are already moving in that direction. Instances are the proceedings in the Belgian courts against Ariel Sharon in relation to alleged crimes in the Lebanon, and the active involvement of the courts of Spain in relation to alleged crimes against humanity said to have been committed by Pinochet. Members of any governments actively involved in bringing about an unlawful war against Iraq would be well advised to be cautious as to the countries they visit during the remainder of their lives.”

—————————————————————————–
Doug Linder
“Nurenberg Trials” Famous Trials Website,

“1944, when eventual victory over the Axis powers seemed likely, President Franklin Roosevelt asked the War Department to devise a plan for bringing war criminals to justice….. . Allied leaders had[various] ideas… Churchill reportedly told Stalin that he favored execution of captured Nazi leaders. Stalin answered, “In the Soviet Union, we never execute anyone without a trial.” Churchill agreed saying, “Of course, of course. We should give them a trial first.”

[Initially the main concern was that Germany would re-arm and start another war, not an unrealistic fear given the history. One plan favored by some:] .
“suggested summarily shooting many prominent Nazi leaders at the time of capture and banishing others to far off corners of the world. Under the …plan, German POWs would be forced to rebuild Europe. The …aim was to destroy Germany’s remaining industrial base and turn Germany into a weak, agricultural country.”
[…]
“The [War Department] … proposal would try responsible Nazi leaders in court. The …plan labeled atrocities and waging a war of aggression as war crimes, and, it proposed treating the Nazi regime as a criminal conspiracy.”
[…]
“Roosevelt eventually chose to support the War Department’s plan. …[T]he Big Three] issued a statement in Yalta in February, 1945 favoring some sort of judicial process for captured enemy leaders.

———————————————–

After Roosevelt died Pres. Truman appointed US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson as US Chief Prosecutor. Subsequenty The US, UK, USSR, and France agreed on:

The Charter of the International Military Tribunal

[…]

“The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

(b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

( c)CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

CONTINUED

Robert McDougall,
you’re welcome, always glad to help.

Maybe sometimes that’s sufficient, just throw the invaders out and get back to what you were doing. But not this time. “Anti-colonial struggle” hasn’t won over the Shiite majority, they prefer “Wait a few days for the occupiers to transfer power to us”. That leaves the insurgents with a choice of two programs, Sunni Arab secession or restoration of Sunni Arab dominance, neither of which deserves support.

Cirdan is right (and I don’t think it’s controversial) that self-determination is a prerequisite for any ‘positive’ program.

But I also disagree that “Anti-colonial struggle” hasn’t won over the Shiite majority. I understand that British forces in the South are being attacked every day: Our troops’ life in Basra: smile, shoot, smile…. It’s only a matter of degree.

It’s not the Shiite majority, but the Shiite leaders who prefer “Wait a few days for the occupiers to transfer power to us”.

Cheers.

and he predicted exactly what would happen a year in advance.

Which of us didn’t?

An English Plea For Peace With The American Colonies

My Lords, this ruinous and ignominious situation, where we cannot act
with success, nor suffer with honour, calls upon us to remonstrate in
the strongest and loudest language of truth, to rescue the ear of Majesty
from the delusions which surround it. You cannot, I venture to say, you
CANNOT conquer America.

What is your present situation there? We do not know the worst; but we
know that in three campaigns we have done nothing and suffered much.
You may swell every expense, and strain every effort, still more
extravagantly; accumulate every assistance you can beg or borrow; traffic and
barter with every pitiful German Prince, that sells and sends his
subjects to the shambles of a foreign country: your efforts are forever vain
and impotent-doubly so from this mercenary aid on which you rely; for
it irritates to an incurable resentment the minds of your enemies, to
overrun them with the sordid sons of rapine and of plunder, devoting them
and their possessions to the rapacity of hireling cruelty! If I were an
American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my
country, I never would lay down my arms! -Never! Never! Never!: William
Pitt – – November 18th 1777
Posted at medialens by David Soori

Otto,
In terms of getting US bases out, it is possible: the Philippines managed it after getting rid of Marcos.

Yes, it is possible – it took a volcano eruption to get them out.

They rest of your post is highly speculative.

I suppose you’re right that the Germans could do it – Germany is the central part of the EU now, so direct US intervention in Germany is unlikely; but I don’t see any reason to think that the US will leave Cuba when there is a democratic government there. More likely they’ll build a couple more bases right in the middle of Cuba. Just in case.

I know it’s a bit late now and the party’s over, but just for posterity: the whole “US bases out of [insert nation conquered during WWII here]!” thing is not as simple as I see people here making it out to be. Of course people don’t like the idea of US soldiers walking around their country with guns, but on the other hand they also don’t like the idea of their local economies and employment rates going into the toilet when those soldiers leave, and take their paycheques with them.

Thus in each country there are some people who wish the Americans would just leave, and some whose entire careers hinge on the presence of bored American soldiers, and thus would really rather prefer that they stayed. And no doubt there are many people who are torn between the two extremes.

I offer this news story as at least one example of this phenomenon and I submit that it is not unreasonable to consider it part of a broader pattern:

http://www.timesleader.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/9418680.htm

Whether one uses this fact to argue “even if the US bases stay, it won’t be so bad!” or “look at how dependent [X] has become on US bases! we have to get them out of Iraq before that happens!” is a whole nother story.

Sure, I’m sure Iris would like that just fine, abb1, but clearly the German government hasn’t offered to do so or she wouldn’t be upset about the whole thing. And then there’s the other guy who mentions friendships. I guess the government could send a spare secretary over to play scrabble with him, but..

All I’m trying to say is, military bases are a complex issue, and arguing about “getting bases out” as though it were a clear-cut issue where every (say) German wants the US vampire gone, right away thanks, is not really getting anyone anywhere.

jim rockford wrote, Saddam could have avoided war by allowing the inspectors in, instead he chose War by not believing Bush was serious post 9/11 and thinking his payoffs to Chirac, Schroeder, and Putin plus China would stop Bush. He gambled and lost; everyone paid.

Well, the inspectors were in, shortly before the war commenced. And the reason they had been gone for a few years was that they left when the US told them to leave, prior to increasing bombing of Iraq.

george wrote, A lie is when you knowingly present a falsehood as the truth. If you have evidence that Bush or Cheney or anybody else knew for a fact that Saddam had no active WMD programs in 2003, at the time they were saying he did, let’s see it.

Completely laughable—no one has access to the requisite records, and this isn’t a criminal trial, requiring evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

As hypotheses go about politicians, the claim that Bush knew he was lying is a far better bet than that he didn’t know he was lying.

Mill,
I was arguing with someone about US military forces in Korea recently. I searched the web and it turns out that Korea has something like (off the top of my head) 600,000 troops of its own. There are 30,000 US troops that used to be located mostly in Seoul, but now they are being moved further South, further from the demarcation line. What do they defend there? I don’t know.

Jim Rockford sez: But, far too many here seem to hate America, love tyranny and murder, and want us to lose.

There it is, political debate as it is practiced in the U.S.A. circa 2005. You right-wingers, honest to God, it’s impossible to discuss anything at all with your camp nowadays. Do you seriously think left-leaning readers of Crooked Timber love tyranny and murder? You know that’s bullshit, we know that’s bullshit, so why did you defame us like that? You’re not standing in a bar full of halfwits in Kansas yakking about the absent them, why do you throw crap in our faces as you did? It’s pretty much the same thing as if I concluded a political argument with “Jim Rockford just loves raping six-year-olds”; given that I am perfectly sure you do not, in fact, molest six-year-olds, what excuse would I have for assaulting you with an absurd and disgusting insult like that? Conversely, if insulting strangers is your only purpose for posting, why not save yourself the effort of typing all those words and words, and simply post “FUCK YOUSE LIBRULS!!!1!” instead?