Picking up the gauntlet

Okay, look the Baath party were bad people, so when they tortured people that meant that bad people had all the fun of torturing people, but Americans are good christian folk, so when they get all the fun of torturing people that is a net benefit that just doesn’t seem to be entering into anybody’s calculations.

I wonder why.

“those nations (France, Germany, and Russia) who profited from the failures of the UN strategy”

Chalabi’s disinformation haws apparently completely contaminated the pro-war discourse. The evidence that coutnries like France, Germany and Russia “profited from the failures of the UN strategy” consists of Chalabi’s claims as to what he found in Saddams secret files, which he has declined to share with anyone else.

Ayjay: By “we”, I mean the UK, US and Australia, acting unilaterally if necessary, on the basis of a sensible plan. I say “in process” because, although I do not make any claim to military knowledge, I would venture that June is a bad month to be starting operations in Mesopotamia. Saddam would not be in much of a position to accelerate his murdering of Jurds, because they live under US protection.

Nat: Don’t know. Haven’t been able to come to a clear conclusion one way or another.

Dsquared wrote:

“Saddam would not be in much of a position to accelerate his murdering of Jurds, because they live under US protection.”

Which protection came about due to coalition forces killing thousands of Iraqis in Gulf War I, right?

I’d reject the grounds of all these arguments. The purpose of the US government and the US military is not to save the most possible Iraqi lives. It’s to best serve and protect the US’s interests. (And ditto for every other government.)

Keegan’s original argument is lame. It takes the one good thing that came of the war and pretends that it is the only entry on the cost benefit ledger.

“If those who show themselves so eager to support the war feel strongly enough on the issue, please will they explain their reasons for wishing that 800 American soldiers should be dead and thousands more wounded.”

This is equally inane. When evaluating a policy, you look at all the costs and all the benefits, not just one that happens to support your opinion. If Keegan thinks the benefits have outweighed the costs, fine. But don’t pretend as though there aren’t both, or as if an opponent of the war is therefore opposed to achieving any of the goals that the war did achieve.

Thank you!

It is constantly being asserted in both the conventional media and the blogosphere that those of us who opposed the war are therefore in favour of Saddam remaining in power. This conflates, in many cases I am sure deliberately, two separate questions, namely views on Saddam and his regime and views on how it should be dealt with. It is obviously possible to argue that not invading would have the effect of leaving him in power but that has no bearing on my or anyone elses views on the man and his regime and to argue otherwise is at best laziness and at worst downright dishonest.

“So, for example, I think it impermissible for anyone to murder the Yorkshire Ripper. If they were to do so, however, I would not wish that he were still alive.”

Why wouldn’t you wish he were still alive?

Aren’t there many other, equally bad regimes ( Congo, Myanmar, ?) that should be invaded under these rules? Or does the fact the Iraq is “swimming in oil” have a special significance?

I more or less agree with what you’ve said on this before, but in balancing your morbid books don’t you need to take account of how many would have died as a result of the sanctions (assuming of course that the only alternative to war was indeed continuing the sanctions)?

I say this from the point of view of someone who has no idea how damaging the sanctions are/were, or how things have changed…

Regarding the sanctions, the Bush Administration was talking about switching over to smart sanctions in its earliest months, which would have been less brutal. Assuming the US acted in good faith, which is doubtful.

Anyway, the streets of Iraq still run with sewage and the infant mortality rate is still high, possibly higher than just before the war, from what little I’ve been able to read on the subject.

Keegan just hates anyone who is anti-war because when we get our way, he has one less war to pontificate on and write about.

“and we would most likely be well on our way to formulating a credible, sensible, properly resourced plan for getting rid of him and handling the aftermath.”

When you start from a ridiculous premise like this one, all sorts of things become easy to defend. Of France, Germany and Russia, none of them expressed much interest in either proposing or participating or in fact doing anything other than vehemently opposing plans (resourced or otherwise) to get rid of Saddam.

I realize that it can be easy to focus on European words even when they are coupled with minimal action (see European ‘support’ in Afghanistan) but in this instance you can’t even get to a campaign of words for getting rid of Saddam.

But maybe I missed the concerted effort of Europe to get rid of Saddam. Maybe I missed the concerted effort in Europe to mull over getting rid of Saddam. But until you point me to it, I suspect I missed it only because it never existed.

“I wish Saddam Hussein was still in power in Baghdad because if this were the case, then about 3,000 Iraqis would have been murdered by his regime and would be dead, the roughly 10,000 Iraqis we killed ourselves would still be alive, and we would most likely be well on our way to formulating a credible, sensible, properly resourced plan for getting rid of him and handling the aftermath.”

That’s taking some time to digest. I didn’t think that anyone would wish that Saddam were still in power. As Chris B argues above, even if one were opposed to the act of removing Saddam, one needn’t necessarily wish for his still being in power. Apparently Daniel has other motivations–he does wish Saddam were in power–but what could they be? Even if it is possible that one needn’t be an apologist for mass graves if one opposed the war, has Daniel become one?

The apparent justification for his position is mathematical: 3000 lives snuffed out by Saddam’s regime, weighed against the 10,000 Iraqi lives estimated lost in the war. This calculation ignores the price of lost liberty for the millions of Iraqis not killed in either scenario. Surprisingly, it is completely unconcerned with culpability–as if killing innocent Iraqis is the same as killing Saddam and his henchmen. Also ignored is the lives lost to the UN sanctions regime, which were in place before and during the war, and which presumably would have remained in place while we waited for Daniel’s “credible, sensible” plan. Considering just the calculation offered, the “credibile, sensible” etc. plan that Daniel is hoping for would need to have been implemented within a little over 3 years. (By this logic, we would have been justified invading years ago, though not last year, at least not yet.) For every year of delay, the number of deaths resulting from the invasion would need to be reduced by a proportionate amount, so if we invaded at this time next year, we’d need to weight additional thousands of lives lost to the regime in the delay against the lives lost in the invasion. If 6000 lives had been lost at that point, but the invasion cost 8000 lives, presumably it would still have come too early–the “rush to war” we’ve all read about.

Math is tough–I’m going to stop now.

Damn, I hate it when people whose work I generally admire come over as complete and utter prats. Especially when his argument is not (in the sense of how I was trained, and not necessarily in any precise philosophic sense) logical. It was never an “if you are against the war, you are for Saddam” situation, as much as many folks would like us to think. Does any sensible person think that Iraq is not better off without the Hussein family (’cause Uday and Qusay were just waiting to take over …)? It’s disappointing to think that Keegan’s own interest in warfare seems to have blinded him to the manifold legitimate reasons for people to want to avoid it except as a last resort.

and where did the 10,000 number come from – you give no source and no indication what proportion of these were combatants as opposed to innocent civilians.

I also wonder why you dont include deaths from war in the fuire – over his 30 year reign Saddam conducted wars that killed about 1 million i.e. an average of 30,000 per year.

So if you want to get into body count territory the hurdels closer to 60,ooo than 3,000

When I review the situation, the hysteria caused by 911, which was exacerbated by the media, led me and a number of others to consider that Saddam H. might attack the US out of pure jealousy of UBL. UBL’s attack was cheap, simple and effective, unlike the mediocre Iraq Army.

I think it may have been reasonable to conclude that Saddam’s jealousy would have spurred him to a similar act, which the US desired to prevent.

In that light there was no doubt that Saddam had to be removed, but the US did not proceed in a logical manner. The opening to get Saddam and get the oil proved too much for the US and frankly the Blair Government. He had to go, but not until some other issues were discussed.

The primary issues to be resolved prior to the invasion, was the US policy in the Middle East associated with the Arab-Israeli conflict and our reliance on oil.

I was certainly pro war, but not the way the US did it. When I ran for US Congress in 2002, the local editorial asked the candidates opinion about war in Iraq. I answered that we should go after Iraq, right after we march American Troops into Palestine to separate the factions in that conflict. The editorial board collective jaws dropped to the floor and one of them responded that the US cannot invade a sovereign nation……

Let’s face it, America and its people are a self righteous, callous and will rationalize anything because we believe we were ordained by GOD. We killed the Indians over land, gold, manifest destiny and we are going to kill the Muslims because they do not believe in the right God and they have no clue about how to use that precious gift – OIL.

I think it may have been reasonable to conclude that Saddam’s jealousy would have spurred him to a similar act, which the US desired to prevent.

Oh, come on. Having a fantasy about what Saddam Hussein might decide to do in a fit of jealousy is no basis for going to war. There has never been any evidence of Iraqi agents planning attacks against the U.S.–such an attack would guarantee a U.S. invasion, and Saddam Hussein was obviously trying to avoid one.

Pepi wrote:

“The humanitarian concern was never the real reason”

What was the real reason? To steal Iraqi oil?

Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)?

One wonders why the left continues to revel in their ignorance.

One wonders why the left continues to revel in their ignorance.

Oh dear, Al the idiot is here. Try looking up ‘plural’ in a dictionary some time.

Some analysts worry the 155-millimeter artillery shell, found rigged as a bomb on May 15, may be part of a larger stockpile of Iraqi chemical weapons that insurgents can now use. But no more have turned up, and several military officials have said the shell may have been an older one that predated the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

‘Weapon of not much destruction’, you mean.

Nick,

Al’s not an idiot. He’s a model.

“sebastian- D^2 already made it perfectly clear, nearly 3 hours before your post, that he was not relying on the French, Germans, or Russians.”

Oh I’m so sorry. Who the hell is relying on? The Americans?

“Furthermore, the French are “supporting” the effort in Afghanistan by providing thousands of troops, without whom even our meagre Kabul beachhead would be untenable.”

Yes, a few thousand troops. At the time of the war less than 3,000. Now hardly more than that. And that is it. The total European contigent is less than 20,000 and I’m not sure but it may include non-Europeans too. In the clear case. 20,000? That is a pittance. And most of the equipment is American anyway. And they get there on American transports. And America bears most of the cost. And that is the CLEAR CASE. What could we have expected in Iraq? 20,000 more? Don’t make me laugh. And even a mere 20,000 would be a pathetic contribution. Look at the number of US troops in Iraq.

Look, if you want to argue that the war wasn’t worth it, feel free. Just don’t pretend that Saddam was going to be out of power in 2004 or 2005 or 2006 via multi-lateral action. He wasn’t. That is fine. Kim will probably be in power in 5 years. I don’t care if you want to argue against the war, though it is a bit late now. Just don’t try to balm your fragile human rights conscience with bullshit about how Saddam would be kicked out of power by the international community. That is the kind of lie you can tell yourself. But if you publicize a lie that transparent, don’t expect everyone to nod their heads in agreement with your self-delusion.

Sebastian: It’s good to know some Americans understand how insignificant the foreign troops in Iraq are. I suppose, as an Australian, I’ll hear no objections from you when we bring our fifteen hundred soldiers home at the end of the year? Just like how you didn’t care when the Spanish pulled out, right?

can anyone point me to where Daniel came up with this 3,000 figure because its not supported by the post he linked to – or seeemingly his god HRW.

Picking up on Sebastian’s point, I think the fellow who said that Daniel left out casualties from the “upcoming civil war” should explain whether he really thinks that Saddam dying while still in power would not have provoked a civil war.

So the conservatives here seem to be too stupid to figure out that no one is actually claiming to know the exact answer to that mathematical equation. But neither do any of you. Everybody is just pulling numbers out of their asses. And if nobody has any idea whether Iraqis would have been better off with or without an invasion, then the humanitarian justifications for the war are essentially meritless. Unfortunately, the humanitarian arguments are all that are left for the pro-war side, because all the other justifications have been utterly discredited and everyone knows it.

10,000 for Iraqis killed seems an awfully low figure to me. That’s the figure obtained by the Iraqi Body Count project, using very conservative criteria and only counting _civilian_ dead. I would be very surprised if fewer than 30,000 Iraqis have been killed so far by Coalition forces and Iraqi insurgents between them.

– “The humanitarian concern was never the real reason”
– Nat Whilk: What was the real reason? To steal Iraqi oil?
– No, to steal the women.

If you’d read more than one line you’d have perhaps spotted the answer. Here goes, again:
Humanitarian concern was never the real reason _because_, like Matthew pointed out, and as I quoted from him, the policy was that “Saddam could remain in power if he collaborated with inspections and disarmed”, _and_ (I added) there was no requirement he not slaughter other 3,000, or 10,000, or 62,000… Only the requirement his regime disarm, or else.

Reasons that were given for military intervention: WMD; anti-terrorism; humanitarian (let’s topple a dictatorship, why won’t you agree to topple a a dictatorship? you must be pro-dictatorship!) — since the case for the former two reasons given was a bit wobbly and unconvincing, the latter reason proved the strongest, especially if used in that put-up-or-shut-up manner.

This has been a recap for those who missed the past two years of the tv news show of their choice. You’re welcome.

— should have added: … the humanitarian concern proved the strongest to use to present the case to the public, but it was not the one used in the strict process chosen to justify and legitmise war, the process involving UN talks and resolutions. That was entirely about WMD. The humanitarian reason was used outside of the UN, in speeches and so on. — not the real reason.

As different from that “humanitarian war” (ouch) in Kosovo, for which the case at the UN did specifically address humanitarian concerns and those only. — real reason.

Just like terrorism was the one and only “real reason” used for Afghanistan, both in arguments and at the UN. (Even though the humanitarian motive in toppling the Talebans was added as extra, again, in arguments to the public).

That’s what I meant for “real reason”. In terms of public accounting / international law process. Not in terms of wider, deeper strategies and interests which are a field for speculation. Just what was said, and argued.

Pepi wrote:

“If you’d read more than one line you’d have perhaps spotted the answer. Here goes, again:
Humanitarian concern was never the real reason because, like Matthew pointed out, and as I quoted from him, the policy was that “Saddam could remain in power if he collaborated with inspections and disarmed”, and (I added) there was no requirement he not slaughter other 3,000, or 10,000, or 62,000… Only the requirement his regime disarm, or else.

Reasons that were given for military intervention: WMD; anti-terrorism; humanitarian (let’s topple a dictatorship, why won’t you agree to topple a a dictatorship? you must be pro-dictatorship!) — since the case for the former two reasons given was a bit wobbly and unconvincing, the latter reason proved the strongest, especially if used in that put-up-or-shut-up manner.

This has been a recap for those who missed the past two years of the tv news show of their choice. You’re welcome.”

How nice to be berated by an ardent supporter of peace, love, and understanding! I read your entire post last time, I’ve read your entire post this time, and I still don’t see your answer to my question. What was the real reason for the invasion? You earlier explicitly denied that it was humanitarian, and in this latest follow-up you appear to be explicitly denying that it was anti-WMD or anti-terrorism. Now you’ve told us what the real reason was not, but I don’t see where you’ve told us what the real reason was. If possible, try to highlight the one sentence that contains your answer. That way, those of us who only got 750s on our verbal SATs and 31s on our English ACTs will be able to spot it.

So, pardon me for being a boor, but it sure looks to me like Iraq struck the USA at least five times in terror attacks, and the USA retaliated each time, but in a way designed not to indicate Iraqi authorship of any of the attacks. See above for details. I hope that most readers would concede that if this were true, it would have a considerable bearing on debates such as this one.

What I want to know is, what do people think when they read a timeline like the one I’ve assembled? Every statement in there is, so far as I can determine, factual. During previous attempts to raise this subject, I have encountered very little engagement with the factual details. I am quite happy to discuss alternative interpretations, but it would be nice to see some acknowledgement that, yes, Flight TWA800 did blow up on Iraqi National Day, while Ramzi Yousef was on trial for plotting to blow up planes; that, yes, it is odd that the guy who finished the job of destroying the World Trade Center in 2001 was the uncle of the guy who first tried to blow it up in 1993; and yes, that it’s also odd that they came from Kuwait, the country over which Iraq and the USA first fought a war; and so on.

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

But if you think comparing high point involvement to low point involvement makes for a useful discussion, I totally see where you are coming from.

Sebastian: But if you think comparing high point involvement to low point involvement makes for a useful discussion, I totally see where you are coming from.

I wonder if you do. In fact, the curves that have been drawn in Afghanistan (declining U.S. involvement vs. increasing European involvement) are exactly the curves both Bush and Kerry have stated they would like to see happen in Iraq. My argument with your position is not a pro- or anti-war argument. My point is simply that it is of limited utility to insult and deride the Europeans for doing in Afghanistan exactly what we now want them to do in Iraq. Right now, the Europeans make up the majority of the forces in Afghanistan, and take their orders from the U.S. military. If I can say that about Iraq this time next year, I’ll be a happy man.

I don’t care if you want to argue against the war, though it is a bit late now.

Actually, Sebastian, if you take the position that the Europeans should be dismissed as a bunch of unredeemably weak pussies based upon what they did or didn’t do at, as you termed it, “the high point” of American involvement, without regard for how useful their current actions in Afghanistan are, it would be you who are unnecessarily fixated on arguing about the past.

Nat Whilk, I’ll try again:

I should have not use the wording “real reason” because you clearly are understanding it as something else, as in “the real deepest motives that pushed us into this war”. That’s NOT what I meant. If you do want an answer about what deep, obscure reason it was, don’t ask me! I didn’t make the decision. Ask Bush, Tenet, Rumsfeld, whoever you want that actually knows. Cause I sure don’t. Capisc? I hope so.

The point was simply that the reason used in the strictly technical process to justify war (ie. the process that went via the UN) was not the humanitarian concern for Iraqis being tortured by Saddam, but the lack of proof that his regime had disarmed from WMD. That was the subject of UN talks and resolutions that led to the war.

That’s fact, not my opinion. All clear so far? Hope so.

Now, next step: the humanitarian concern, in spite of not being the “real reason” – the _technical_ reason _given at the UN_ – was still used widely and abundantly in arguing the case for war vis a vis the public, the populace, the people, the voters, the subjects, the citizens. Via politicians’ speeches; media interviews; editorials; op-eds; articles, etc.

It was added onto the WMD argument, especially after the WMD argument turned a mess to sustain and the UN process didn’t produce the results that were desired by those who had already decided they wanted to go to war.

That’s all. I don’t think it’s that hard to understand? I’m not making any argument pro or against the war itself. Just pointing out the difference between what arguments were used and where.

Oh, and I do not advocate peace, love and understanding at all. I advocate ruthless keyboard deprivation for people who consciously misrepresent other people’s views in ridiculous ways.

Pepi wrote:

“I should have not use the wording “real reason” because you clearly are understanding it as something else, as in “the real deepest motives that pushed us into this war”.”

There’s a good English word for what you now appear to have meant: “ostensible”. The OED says it means: “Declared, avowed, professed; exhibited or put forth as actual and genuine: often implicitly or explicitly opposed to ‘actual’, ‘real’, and so = merely professed, pretended.” (Emphasis added.)

“Oh, and I do not advocate peace, love and understanding at all.”

Really? So what’s wrong with torture?

“I advocate ruthless keyboard deprivation for people who consciously misrepresent other people’s views in ridiculous ways.”

As you’ve been cornered into admitting several times on this board, it’s your own use of the English language that misrepresents your views.

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

Mitch, I’m not sure what your point is. Is it:

a) A couple of guys from Kuwait have it in for America, so Iraq was engaging in a terrorist campaign against the US?

Or

b) Kuwaiti and Saudi attackers on the US had been assisted when in Europe by members of a Syrian terrorist group who had been backed by Iraq when Iraq was backed by America, so Iraq was engaging in a terrorist campaign against the US?

Sebastian, you’ve asked ‘is there any reason to believe that there would be a significantly lower civilian casualty rate under a UN or other international banner?’

Well, possibly. Read Wes Clark’s Fighting for Peace. Or Michael Ignatieff’s Virtual War. There were brigades of lawyers engaged by NATO forces to minimise inadvertant war crimes and civilian casualties. NATO’s command structure required unanimous support for all actions. So maybe, just maybe, there would have been less collateral damage in a war run by NATO than by an American led posse.

As for your sneering at the lack of European troops in Afghanistan, and saying that even if there were another 20,000 troops the contribution would be laughable, since that wouldn’t even be close to the Australian contingent, proportionately calculated…

40,000 troops out of 450 million people would be slightly higher (.0089%)than 1,500 out of 20 million (.0075%). And of course far higher than 11,500 out of 290 million (.0039%), which is the American contribution.

After all, John M has it completely right. NATO offered complete assistance after the attacks on New York and Washington, and George and his cronies just sneered at them. It’s a bit rich to complain that they’re not helping enough now.

There were brigades of lawyers engaged by NATO forces to minimise inadvertant war crimes and civilian casualties. NATO’s command structure required unanimous support for all actions. So maybe, just maybe, there would have been less collateral damage in a war run by NATO than by an American led posse.

Er, Greg, maybe not. The NATO bombing of former Yugoslavia for instance was longer and heavier than in Iraq and there were many more ‘collateral damage’ screwups and ‘mistakes’ (to name a huge one, the Chinese embassy being wiped out), the infrastructure was more heavily affected, hospitals left with no electricity, factories destroyed,etc. Even the first bombing of Iraq in 1991 was a lot heavier than last year.

You’re absolutely right in the rest of your points, and I do agree from a political point of view going through an already-established alliance like NATO is better. Obviously the military strategy is always managed primarily by the US and Britain so it’s not a huge difference during war, but it can make a political difference in post-war management. It just doesn’t necessarily make things better in terms of civilian casualties during bombings. Bombings always kill and destroy, no matter if they’re right, wrong, multinational or unilateral. So I don’t think casualty numbers have really any weight in that kind of judgements.

My response to Greg is here.