Harry's Place

The beauty of “what if” scenarios are their uncertainty – the basis of this sad, reheated WMD argument, and the wars of preemption. You know, us cynical folk just misunderstand our American friends. Selfless bravery it was, no less – nothing to do with other interests. This is charity: spending all that dough on wars “to make the world a safer place”. They are just sadly misunderstood, surely?

Please delete from your memory the media marvels of 02/03: the dodgy dossiers, the faulty intelligence, the 45 minutes to destruction, the endless drivel about Saddam having chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry there and then, the yellow cake from Niger, mushroom clouds, etc etc. Yes, 5 years ago, dutifully repeated by journalists fed by the ridiculous Chalibi and his chums, Labour’s spin machine etc.

Okay, so it was a bit exaggerated, pah! What’s a bit of exaggeration between friends? It’s only another war in the Middle East.

Benjamin, old boy, nobody cares what you say, however many times you say it. You’re an ignoramus and a bore now, just as you were in 2003. Get a life, and stop wasting everyone’s time and Harry’s space.
FUCK OFF, BENJI.

Bring back Saddam eh Benji ?

You’re the kind of person who no doubt would be very happy for the Iraqis to still be living under a never ending tyranny.

You’d probably be complaining if there were sanctions tho. All those poor Iraqi children dying because of the West.

Better just to leave things as they were eh ? Just like Mugabe in Zimbabwe let the dictator do what he likes to “his” people.

You hypocritical scum.

Those who opposed the removal of Saddam never seem to be prepared to explain how exactly they think Iraq would have been better with Saddam still in charge. Would sanctions have continued (with all the deaths that they caused)?: Would no fly zones have continued? Would some other way have been sought to produce regime change? If so what? We should be told.

Oh come off it. Can we stop the bullshit about wmds please. There never were any and it was a dud reason for the invasion. The real reason was good enough; namely to divert any attacks away from the US.

Mission successful – not one peep out of AQ on US soil since 2001.

“The fact is that, by 2002, no inspection regime and no amount of international pressure, no matter how plumped up by yet another UN resolution, would have kept him contained any longer” – Say what you will about US involvement in Iraq between 1991 and 2003, but one thing that is indisputable is that Saddam was “contained”. In 1998, operation Desert Fox destroyed much of Saddam’s weapons manufacturing capacity – US generals were surprised at its success. Sure, there was a human tragedy in the country, largely due to sanctions. We also know that what weapon’s inspectors like Scott Ritter were saying before the war, was correct – there were no WMDs. If you must keep arguing for the war, using the line that Saddam was actually a threat to anyone outside his country (and discounting the Kurd’s in the North and Shia in the south who were largely protected by the US) is absurd. Arthur Herman is just another ill-informed, partisan hack – his writings are worthless.

… on the plus side, the number of substantive articles on Iraq on HP in the last year just went up to four. The fact this one is pure hot air is unfortunate – but at least it makes a substantive argument.

So TheIrie – Saddam’s tyranny was “contained”. We should have just let him get on with it eh ? Perhaps remove sanctions as they were killing all those children ? After all the country belonged to him and his family according to the UN.

Just like Mugabe – let him do what he wants, its a sovereign country.

Besides Saddam supported the Palestinians to the hilt and was a great “anti-Zionist”. No wonder you mourn his passing.

“Arthur Herman is just another ill-informed, partisan hack – his writings are worthless.”

What an idiot. Have you read any of Herman’s books before saying such a stupidity? He is a superb historian.

How is the chalk going, Andrew? still too much for you? Why don’t you start with something easier, like the dirt on your toenails?

MMN – your comment is characteristically ridiculous. I did not say we should have let Saddam get on with it. I simply made the factual statement that unlike Herman’s assertion, Saddam was “contained”.

Fabian – I’ve only read the nonsense above – which I find sufficient to judge the man a dang fool.

“Fabian – I’ve only read the nonsense above – which I find sufficient to judge the man a dang fool.”

So why do you talk about his “writings” when you have read just one and only one article?

You know who the fool really is. And you are an academic, Andrew? Doesn’t look like. Unless it means something else than a guy who had had higher education.

Fabian – you’re absolutely write. I can’t judge him or his “writings”. I can merely judge this article – which is crap. I accept your correction.

Saddam was “contained” by sanctions and no-fly zones, both of which were strongly opposed by sections of the Left. (Recall that Brian Haw’s little escapade began as a protest against Iraq sanctions.) Apparently the view now is that these things weren’t so bad after all.

TheIdiot – So what would you have done about Iraq ? How was Saddam to be removed ? If Saddam was “contained” it implies all was OK and nothing else needed to be done.

“Sure, there was a human tragedy in the country, largely due to sanctions.”

You are saying Iraq under Saddam would have been OK if sanctions were removed. So you would have been happy if Saddam was left in power and sanctions removed ?

He may have been “contained” or not but he still ran a vicious tyranny against his people.

Just like Mugabe. Do you think we should remove sanctions against Zimbabwe as well ?

No, Bob – sanctions killed 500,000 children and did nothing to contain Saddam – they probably strengthened him. As for the no-fly zones – they worked. Just ask the Kurds.

In fact, if Bush Snr hadn’t allowed Saddam’s helicopters to take off in 1991 after the war, which he could easily have done, the Shia uprising (inspired by the US, who dropped leaflets urging people to rise up against Saddam) wouldn’t have been put down by Saddam. Bush Snr chose, at this point, to keep Saddam as the least worst option. The result of allowing the helicopters to slaughter the rebels may well be one reason the US wasn’t exactly welcomed in 2003.

Can anyone explain to me why sanctions and boycots targetting Iraq “killed Iraqi babies” (according to Galloway and Haw) and that sanctions and boycots against Zimbabwe will not be effective and only hurt the people, not the government, but sanctions against South Africa were considered beyond qualification or reproach and the number one reason the British Left thinks it played a part in helping to end apartheid?

Either sanctions and boycots work or they don’t. EITHER they don’t work for all the reasons Galloway, Haw et al claim, and only hurt the victims… OR this sect on British Left must give up the conceit that it made any contribution to the ending of apartheid. Which is it to be?

So Bush senior should have imposed a no-fly zone in 1991. And how many on the Left would have denounced this as a despicable act of imperialism?

In fact, if Bush Snr hadn’t allowed Saddam’s helicopters to take off in 1991 after the war, which he could easily have done, the Shia uprising (inspired by the US, who dropped leaflets urging people to rise up against Saddam) wouldn’t have been put down by Saddam.

But wouldn’t that have led to sectarian fighting and the break-up of Iraq. Both things I’m sure you would criticise Bush Junior for sparking by invading Iraq in 2003.

Are you arguing that in 1991 we should have removed Saddam when we had the chance?

“He may have been “contained” or not but he still ran a vicious tyranny against his people.” (MMN)

MMN: TheIrie is the sort of person in which this argument has no resonance at all.

“Either sanctions and boycots work or they don’t.”

That’s a bit like saying either war works or it doesn’t – ergo either all wars are good or all wars are bad. In reality, we can look at the detail a little bit. In the case of Iraq, sanctions impacted medical supplies, and child mortality went up so much it led UNICEF to conclude that the result of sanctions was 500,000 children under 5 had died (See wikipedia here). That’s not coming from the left.

Brett – the reason is simple. Sanctions against white colonialists and Israel are OK because the pseudo-Left doesn’t like them. Sanctions against Mugabe and Saddam are not OK because they are freedom fighters, “anti-imperialists” and support the Palestinians. So therefore they can do no wrong.

Thind of retrospective analysis on the rights and wrongs of Iraq really doesn’t matter. There are only two things that are important today. Firstly how Iraq moves from where it is today to a successful conclusion (whatever that is). There seem to be some grounds for optimism over the last six to nine months although I guess it’s going to be a slow process. The second thing that’s important is what we’ve learned from what happened. I suspect that one of the lessons is that doing it properly would require a such a degree of planning and cost so much that it’s unlikely that such a thing will ever be undertaken again. This is unfortunate because whatever the rights and wrongs of Iraq it is perfectly possible that there will be cases in the future when the vast majority agrees that intervention is the right thing to do.

“But wouldn’t that have led to sectarian fighting and the break-up of Iraq. Both things I’m sure you would criticise Bush Junior for sparking by invading Iraq in 2003.

Are you arguing that in 1991 we should have removed Saddam when we had the chance?”

What I am saying, is that the US promised help to the uprising Shia in 1991, and when they rose up, the US completely abandoned them to be slaughtered. Now, on the question of the sectarian break up – I obviously don’t know. However, I suspect it wouldn’t have been nearly as bad in 1991 as it is in 2003 because, a) the population at that point hadn’t been so brutalised (violence begets violence, remember), b) Saddam’s overthrown could have been done by Iraqi’s, albeit with the US in the background, and c) there wouldn’t be the messy complication of a US occupation. But that is pointless speculation. The point now is to understand what actually happened, and what should be done now, not 17 or even 5 years ago.

There never were any [WMDs]

No, Bob – sanctions killed 500,000 children and did nothing to contain Saddam – they probably strengthened him

Ignoring for one second whether any of the above is true (hint: none of it is), how exactly are you suggesting the international community should have gone about containing Saddam without war or sanctions? An annual Operation Desert Fox? Or are you saying we shouldn’t have been concerned whether Saddam was contained or otherwise?

We also know that what weapon’s inspectors like Scott Ritter were saying before the war, was correct – there were no WMDs.

There are, of course, two Scott Ritters. The one who in 1998 resigned in disgust from UNSCOM at the UN’s inability/unwillingness to force Saddam’s compliance and who pronounced Iraq “not nearly disarmed”, and the 2002/03 version who declared that we simply couldn’t know. Even Ritter explicity refused to give Iraq a clean bill of health pre-war. One is left to judge which version of Ritter was best placed to comment authoritatively on Iraq’s WMD capablity: the 1998 version who had spent 7 years inspecting Iraq’s facilities and was privy to all relevant intelligence; or the 2002 media whore version who by that time hadn’t been involved in the process for more than 4 years?

It’s a tough call.

What possesses opponents of the war to want to cite, of all people, Scott Ritter?

Is Irie in support of the First Gulf War?

sanctions killed 500,000 children

References?

So not overthrowing Saddam in 1991 was a bad thing and overthrowing Saddam in 2003 was a bad thing. It’s kind of hard to win if you’re a US President. You only have to get ot of bed in the morning for some people to denounce you.

And the 500k figure is considered more than a little unsafe. Comapre mortality rates in the semi-autonomous north and the rest of Iraq, both areas suffering the same sanctions.

See here for a thorough debunking of the 500k deaths myth.

I fecked up my italics at 9:44.

In fact, if Bush Snr hadn’t allowed Saddam’s helicopters to take off in 1991 after the war, which he could easily have done, the Shia uprising (inspired by the US, who dropped leaflets urging people to rise up against Saddam) wouldn’t have been put down by Saddam.

Note how “The beauty of “what if” scenarios are their uncertainty” and they are “pure hot air” only when being used against the simplistic narratives peddled by certain people and not when bolstering them…

Brownie “Irie, the no-fly zones you champion were in fact illegal”. This is the same Brownie who consistently argues that legality, or rather the authorisation of a US policy by Russia, China and France, is irrelevant. Perhaps we can put that little inconsistency to one side. Anyway, I’m less interested in what position I, the left, you or anyone might have taken at the time, and more interested in understanding these events today. The fact is, the NFZs worked in containing Saddam – something you don’t seem to dispute.

“how exactly are you suggesting the international community should have gone about containing Saddam without war or sanctions?” – I’ve just told you that the NFZs were working. Sanctions did nothing to help, so should have been ditched. War contained Saddam, but the human cost is too high.

And what Scott Ritter said before the war we now know was correct, as I previously stated. Ok, if you don’t like Ritter, lets forget him. The fact is, we now know Saddam had no WMDs in 2003. So, lets stop pretending that we needed to go to war to contain a threat.

“That’s a bit like saying either war works or it doesn’t – ergo either all wars are good or all wars are bad.”

Really, so only ‘bad’ people lost their jobs due to the economic sanctions and disinvestment from South Africa. Of course, since there was no social welfare in South Africa, these job losses didn’t mean children went hungry or diseases went untreated. Likewise, Only ‘bad’ academics were affected by the academic boycott. The cultural boycott left people like Paul Simon and the black musicians he worked with unscathed.

But of course, boycotting South AFrica was unquestionably “a good thing”. Anywhere else of course, it’s very, very bad, or at bes “ineffective”.

Fuck off, Irie!

Completely OT: It has been worrying me that I may be growing more distrait, in that I find myself wondering whence came Neil D? There wasn’t afair, the usual pattern of getting to know someone’s views, pet causes and bugbears through the comments pages, so that when they start posting you have some idea of where they are coming from; I don’t recall his name from the comments at all. Am I wrong? He seems to have risen, fully formed like Venus to his present prolific output. (and none the worse for that, I hasten to add.)

Why was invasion seen as the only way to get rid of Saddam Hussein?

Brett -do you really think that the British left (and indeed international left) didn’t contribute to the fall of Apartheid ?

“Brett -do you really think that the British left (and indeed international left) didn’t contribute to the fall of Apartheid ?”

That depends. Are sanctions and boycotts on the table as ‘effective’ or not?

OT

I was at the ‘Salute to Israel’ rally on Sunday. Was expecting a large counter-demo, however a single Palestinian flag and a banner saying ‘60 years of ethnic cleansing is nothing to celebrate’ (which lasted 5 minutes) was pretty much the extent of it. I think one protester climbed a large video screen, but as he wasn’t in colours he could have been a technican. There were some more protesters off to the side of Trafalgar Sq – their drum playing added to the carnival atmosphere of the event; thanks!

If that’s the physical manifestation of Israel-hatred in the UK then I think decent folk can breathe a sigh of relief – it was pathetic.

HP – I have some photos from the event if you want post them (only of the parade; none of the counter demo – didn’t have a zoom powerful enough…).

Why was invasion seen as the only way to get rid of Saddam Hussein?

Because it was the only way to get rid of Saddam.

Greg: I would love to see the photos.

Ann Onn: do you really think that the British left (and indeed international left) didn’t contribute to the fall of Apartheid ?
IMO and of most authorotative analyses, it was so minor as would have had no effect at all, had it not been for the major factors, which was the fall of the Iron Curtain and the consequent removal of the threat, real or perceived of the Total Onslaught, which gave De Klerk the confidence and the support to engage in negotiations. That combined with the refusal of the International Banking system to roll over SA’s debt, for reasons not linked to the effect of the refusal of the left to buy Outspan oranges.

Having said that, I don’t agree with Brett that if you don’t think sanctions had an effect on SA, you have to accept they won’t in Zim: Unlike SA, Zim is a landlocked country whose economy has been already wrecked by the rapaciousness of the regime.

In response to Harry Barnes – I think the reason why invasion was seen as the only remaining option is that attempted coups had been defeated, and the sanctions regime was being undermined by major players internationally. An ideal alternative might have been a peaceful popular mass movement within Iraq, but given the suppression of the Shia uprising in ‘91 and given the violent sectarian response to change displayed post-invasion I think it’s reasonable to assume that even had any popular movement been able to establish itself, it would have been met by extreme violence of the same kind.

The massive death toll post-invasion reinforces the argument that there was no alternative to the invasion.

Ami. I don’t think that sanctions will have any effect on Zim either. I’m just curious why they are persued with an almost religious zeal in some cases and not others.

Personally, I think the only way to get the message across to Mugabe is to refuse to recognise him as the leader of Zimbabwe at any level, but particularly in the Commonwealth and at the UN, and to accord that status to MT. Mugabe’s goons should be run out of embassies all over the world and the legitimate government allowed to take up residence. Failing which, he should be shot.

“Why was invasion seen as the only way to get rid of Saddam Hussein?”

The only other option was probably to back the internal opposition—both opposition to the Baath and to the Hussein clique within the Baathist structures.

This would have had the advantage of the revolution being conducted mainly by the local forces—a win by the home team, so to speak. However, given the armoury of the totalitarian state machine, it would probably have failed, and ended in mass slaughter by helicopter gunship and gassing, provoking the usual mix of “at least Saddam is contained” and “it’s Rumsfeld’s fault” responses from the usual dupes. But even a successful local-led anti-Baathist revolt would probably have been faced an insurgency of various opportunist/ former regime groups—who, no doubt, would have been hailed as “anti-imperialist” stalwarts by aristocratic journalists such as Seamus Milne. Finally, given how little we now know that the British and US states seemed to know about Iraq and its history—apparently substantially less than my of “Economy and Society of the Middle East” professor—it would have also been very difficult to know how to choose which groups to back, and which would have had a fighting chance.

Brownie “Irie, the no-fly zones you champion were in fact illegal”. This is the same Brownie who consistently argues that legality, or rather the authorisation of a US policy by Russia, China and France, is irrelevant. Perhaps we can put that little inconsistency to one side.

Um, the inconsistency is yours, not mine. My position on these things has been, to summarise, “leagle schmeagle”. As in, the fact an act may be illegal does not necessarily render it immoral, and the fact it is legal does not necessarily mean it is invested with morality. So no contradiction on my side, I’m afraid. You, on the other hand, have previously indicated that the “illegality” issue – especially as it pertains to Iraq – is significant. Yet here you are championing illegal NFZs. If you have changed your mind about the legality aspect and agree that what is effective and ‘right’ should in fact define out actions, then welcome to my club.

The fact is, the NFZs worked in containing Saddam – something you don’t seem to dispute.

They kept his air force out of the sky, which if you were living in Halabja was probably significant, but on their own they did not and never could “contain” Saddam. Sanctions were designed to hinder Saddam’s attempts to gain access to raw materials for WMD development, amongst other things. A NFZ is no guarantee against that whatsoever.

The fact is, we now know Saddam had no WMDs in 2003. So, lets stop pretending that we needed to go to war to contain a threat.

Who is? Herman’s argument is that absent a war and post -sanctions, Saddam would have been free to restart programs and access the required materials, if not immediately then eventually. It’s as much more an argument about what Saddam would have become – again – then it is about what he was circa 2003.

The fact is that even Saddam thought Saddam had WMD. Kelly thought Saddam had WMD. This was a factor in his death.

A general problem arises dealing when with a ‘contained’ dictator and a determined brigade of international arms inspectors.

A bit like being trapped between a hammer and an avil. What’s a poor sod to do?

To weapons inspectors: ‘Yes, sir, we’ve destroyed our WMD. Here’s the evidence. Now please leave us poor Iraqis alone’.

To Saddam: ‘Yes sir, we fooled those darned inspectors! Our WMD programme in in excellent shape! Here is the evidence!’ (Dodgy dossiers). [Pants... now please don't kill us or our families...]

The beauty of it is, whether Saddam had real WMD or just fabled ones, it suited his political purposes equally well. It ‘contained’ the Iranians, cocked a snoop at the Isralis and gained him street cred in the Arab street.

He had to both please the weapons inspectors whilst continuing to worry his neighbours. So he had to cook up two stories and two sets of trails…

Talk about squaring an impossible circle. No wonder the evidence is blurry.

Brownie – “As in, the fact an act may be illegal does not necessarily render it immoral, and the fact it is legal does not necessarily mean it is invested with morality.” I broadly agree with you on this. I may have pointed out that the war is considered illegal, but I do not, and have not, made this the basis of my opposition.

Glad you agree about the effect of the NFZs – that is that they did prevent massacres. The other thing we haven’t mentioned is weapons inspections, which Saddam general had to comply with. The third thing is the air-strikes, which were periodically used between 1991-2003, of which Desert Fox is an example. These three things, what ever else one thinks of them, did contain Saddam. The net effect of those 12 years was to considerably weaken Saddam.

“Herman’s argument is that absent a war and post -sanctions, Saddam would have been free to restart programs and access the required materials, if not immediately then eventually” Firstly, sanctions are largely irrelevant to the question of containment. At the very least they should have been targeted better, to allow medical supplies into the country. But dropping them would make no real difference because of the 3 other factors I listed. His argument is ridiculous, since on the question of containment, the policy was working perfectly well. There was no reason for a war on these grounds.

Note to the cretins – I’m not saying I agree with any of these policies, but on the narrow question of the containment of Saddam, they worked. Try to parse that information through your skulls, please.

devorgilla – good point on David Kelly’s belief that Saddam had WMD’s. Its easy for the stoppers to forget that now, as they gush on about “lies” and such.

Its true he had doubts about some specfic aspects of the “dodgy dossiers” but he also thought Saddam was a serious danger to world peace.

If an expert like Kelly thought that it was more than reasonable for Bush and Blair to think the same.

Still that doesn’t affect the minds of cretinous stopper types. Against all rational evidence all they see is deliberate lies and an oil grabbing conspiracy. They should be treated on the same intellectual level as 9/11 conspiracy moonbats.

Personally, I think the only way to get the message across to Mugabe is to refuse to recognise him as the leader of Zimbabwe at any level, but particularly in the Commonwealth and at the UN, and to accord that status to MT….
Brett 30 June 2008, 11:08 am

That is just nonsense, for two reasons:

1) Without the Reins of power the Movement for Democratic Change (TMDC) will be unable to affect any policy decisions, treaty obligations or any act of power.

2) We have already seen the Terror that Mugabe will release onto his political opposition inside Zimbabwe. Such was the Terror, TMDC withdrew from the election due to the actual murders and beatings that were going on. How do you think that Mugabe’s regime will respond if TMDC started running around the world as the government in exile? The entire Zimbabwe Nation are hostages against that.

As has already been pointed out on this web site, Tsangeri’s actions are restricted by the shear lust for power that exist inside the current regime. Such lust would rather see the people of Zimbabwe starve to death, or worse, than cede power to anyone else.

The worlds response to that must account for the bestiality of this regime, and respond accordingly.

I have (quite literally) talked myself into believing that the only solution to Zimbabwe is for foreign military occuaption

Well some people, like Ami , seem to think Apartheid ended mostly thanks to heroic De Klerk . But without pressure from the ANC, the unions, the township organisations, Apartheid would have continued – indeed never really been questioned . the UK & international left gave very concrete support to those groups (which is why the Apartheid leadership tried so hard to fight against, burgle and bomb ANC people and supporters in the UK and beyond). And of course the ANC asked for sanctions , so even though Brett seems to think he knew better, for the ANC and other organisations fighting apartheid, the international sanctions campaign at the very least gave them courage, made them feel there was solidarity which helped them keep up the fight.
Joe should maybe think on this a bit as well – the ANC asked for sanctions. The MDC have not asked for foreign occupation. Maybe he should think less about persauding himself , and more about listening to Zimbabweans.

A little forgotten account:
First:- UN sanctions against Saddam regime should be done when he attacked Iran.
The sanctions should be political one and a total weapon supply ban (we all know how a lucrative business was that war, for some countries, supplying weapon (sometime to both sides) to two oil rich countries).
Economic suctions against any country which is run by a dictator or dictatorship, which could not be replaced by free election, are criminal.
I approved a sanction against Yugoslavia with Milosevic, which was replaced at the end trough elections and political pressure.
In South Africa there was a possibility that nature of regime could be changed through some kind of democratic process.
Ordinary people mostly suffered from economic sanctions, but dictator got opportunity to tighten his power and control.
1991 war against Iraq was so intense and destructive only because Kuwait oil. Saddam, attacked and occupied Kuwait and kill 600 ( soldiers and civilians), an obvious crime and break of international law. Saddam miscalculated US reaction and would probably withdraw with some more pressure. He tried to save a face with various proposals (like withdrawal of Israel from its occupied territories and asked for international conference about Palestine ) But Bush said no negotiation , no conditions and use that opportunity to destroy Iraq as a country and a military force, killing between 20-100.000 people, with an international support (US and Britain never forget him that he did not denationalised oil production after he was helped to come in power). After total destruction of country infrastructure, transport, electricity, water and sewer treatments …., criminal economic sanctions were imposed against Iraqi people.
I had to welcome Saddam removal, but I was afraid for Iraq future, because those which removed him, US and British, in the past, never cared for Iraqis as they showed numerous times from 1918 till now.

AnnOn,

I have listened to the Zimbabweans. They are so shit scared of their own governement that literally decides if you can have food based on your party membership, that the Oposition Political Party decided that the government was so corrupt, and bestial, that they felt that it was to dangerous to actually oppose them anymore.

Think about AnnOn, what would the Zanu-PF regime do to Zimbaweans if MDC actually asked for a military intervention.

Or for any intervention, for that matter.

My suggestion, AnnOn, is that next time you put your brain into gear before your hands on the Keyboard.

Arthur Herman wrote:

“Given the logic of the situation, at what point could Bush have avoided war? “

Herman is arguing as if George W Bush’s actions were nearly predetermined and the inference is that Bush is somehow almost blameless for the conduct of the invasion of Iraq?

firstly, Herman as a historian should know that nothing is predetermined, it is perfectly possible that Saddam Hussein could have had a heart attack or similar, thus changing the situation completely.

secondly, there has been a whole host of authoritative works from military sources and another experts which deal with the appalling aftermath of the invasion, not least Rumsfeld’s incompetence, Frank’s idiocy and Bremer’s inability to grasp the complex divisions within Iraqi society.

[That's leaving aside the millions, or billions wasted or stolen as a result]

none of that lets George Bush of the hook, he, along with Dick Cheney, made the conscious choice to invade Iraq and the consequences are his alone, good or bad.

Just to add;
For huge majority of population a dictatorship is better then a civil war, especially long one.

BTW,

Think about this. Who would sanctions hurt the most in Zimbabwe. Those people without the gun. AS I mentioned above, access to aid is regulated by the Zanu-PF regime. The people who receive the aid are those people who are party loyalist, at the expense of those who are not.

Do you imagine for a minute that this regime would care if it citizens died due to famine of disease?

Sanctions are useless against a regime that cares little about the suffering of its own people. I fail to see how such sanctions can have a positive affect for the Zimbawean in the street.

Goodwin time:

It is said that as Germany approached Defeat at the end of World War Two, Hitler wouldn’t countenance a surrender to preserve Germany’s industrial infrastructure from destruction, and therefor provide Germany with a viable post war ecconomy. Rather Hitler felt that Germany had betrayed him, and that the German people were unworthy of surviving the war. Thus the NAZI leadership undertook a policy of national suicide, beleiving that they were more important than the welfare of the people, and that the people, unable to deliver for them (the NAZIs) were unworthy of anything.

I see a similar attitude in the Zanu-PF government.

The best way to resolve things in Zimbabwe is the fastest way to oust such a bloody regime.

Unfortunately, the time for action was at least four years ago.

Just to add;
For huge majority of population a dictatorship is better then a civil war, especially long one.

yugoslav 30 June 2008, 2:32 pm

Sentimentally, I agree with you. But truely, I think this is a debatable point.

It is dependent on the nature of the Totalitarian regime. Without doubt, for instance, Civil war is a prefered option to Genecide, at least for the victims of the Genocide.

If the government itself does not bind itself to observing the law, or moral behaviour, if the Government terrorizes its own population, then perhaps the cos of a Civil War that builds a more just and stable society, will, in the long run, lead to a healthier, happier and more egalitarian society afterwards.

yogoslav, answer this question: Is America better of worse off as a result of its own Civil War? Are the people of America better off or Worse off because if it?

“The MDC have not asked for foreign occupation. Maybe he should think less about persauding himself , and more about listening to Zimbabweans.”

Perhaps you haven’t noticed that one of the charges frequently thrown at the opposition activist is “treason”. What do you think would happen if they actually explicitly called for “regime change” via third party involvement?

“1) Without the Reins of power the Movement for Democratic Change (TMDC) will be unable to affect any policy decisions, treaty obligations or any act of power. “

This is only relevant if there are any treaties anyone cares to make with the current illigitimate regime.

“2) We have already seen the Terror that Mugabe will release onto his political opposition inside Zimbabwe. Such was the Terror, TMDC withdrew from the election due to the actual murders and beatings that were going on. How do you think that Mugabe’s regime will respond if TMDC started running around the world as the government in exile? The entire Zimbabwe Nation are hostages against that.”

That argument can be used against ANY measure taken to bring him down. That is why we’re witnessing this paralysis.

I may have pointed out that the war is considered illegal, but I do not, and have not, made this the basis of my opposition.

If I could be arsed to look, I think I might find that you’ve done more than “point out that the war is considered illegal” as if this were purely incidental.

Glad you agree about the effect of the NFZs – that is that they did prevent massacres. The other thing we haven’t mentioned is weapons inspections, which Saddam general had to comply with. The third thing is the air-strikes, which were periodically used between 1991-2003, of which Desert Fox is an example. These three things, what ever else one thinks of them, did contain Saddam. The net effect of those 12 years was to considerably weaken Saddam.

I wouldn’t disagree that these are the facts, but unless you are suggesting Britain and the US should have enforced NFZs in perpetuity, hit Saddam with a Desert Fox style operation every other year and the UN maintained an interminable inespections regime, I’m not clear how you expect that what worked for 12 years between 1991-2003 would have worked from 2003 to 2015?

The war argument was that after 12 years of war, bombings, sanctions and insecptions, we still couldn’t get Saddam to comply with his obligations. Whenever the foot came off the pedal, Saddam would again start to play silly buggers. Inspectors only gained readmittance in the autumn of 2002 after half the US fleet turned up in the Gulf. This was not a coincidence. If we had done what France, Russian and most others had suggested in spring 2003 and let inspections continue (even in the face of continued obstruction by Saddam), then the second the US navy headed back to port, what you suppose would have happened?

Even on the cusp on war, Saddam was still refusing to come to heel. It’s why we reluctantly concluded that nothing short of regime change was ever going to bring closure to this affair. A future conflagration with Saddam was inevtiable; should we wait until it was convenient for him, or deal with at a time when his removal could be effected in relatively short order?

According to my knowledge, mostly from movies, in that war mostly soldiers killed soldiers, but in the civil war I have in mind, Iraq or Bosnia, a live of everybody is in danger any and every moment, and what goodness could replaced hundred thousand lives lost and millions lives destroyed for ever. Bosnia, after 4 years of civil war (which started as an aggression) does not exist anymore and a peace like in Bosnia would be good outcome for Iraq.
You can say also that Switzerland is result of years of civil wars and maybe future Bosnia could be as Switzerland.
I agree that genocide under dictatorship is worse.

“And of course the ANC asked for sanctions…”

I wish people would make up their minds. Are you saying that even if sanctions are determined to be inneffective, counter-productive and harmful to the people they’re meant to help, you’d impose them anyway if one liberation group asked you to?

If that is the case, why bother doing he maths in the first place?

“The war argument was that after 12 years of war, bombings, sanctions and insecptions, we still couldn’t get Saddam to comply with his obligations.”

That is basically the situation summed up perfectly in one sentence.

Can I just be clear Brett, are you saying that you know that the MDC people want foreign military intervention, but are too scared to say ?

“I wouldn’t disagree that these are the facts, but unless you are suggesting Britain and the US should have enforced NFZs in perpetuity, hit Saddam with a Desert Fox style operation every other year and the UN maintained an interminable inespections regime, I’m not clear how you expect that what worked for 12 years between 1991-2003 would have worked from 2003 to 2015?”

Well, it cost the US on average $1.5billion a year over those 12 years to maintain that situation. The war has cost something like $3trillion over about 5 years, which means for the cost of the war we could have maintained that situation for about 400 years – considerably longer I think you’ll agree than Saddam would last. This is a flippant point, of course, but relevant if the only parameter of interest is “containing Saddam”.

Was not THE central lesson learned from WWII ( aside from taking to heart the exact wording of Mien Kampf–an admonition which leads us inexorably to the Koran)that supposedly EVERYONE agreed to was the fact that the Allies should have forcefully opposed Hitler’s occupation of the Sudetenland? In fact, wasn’t practically the one and only reason the UN was created was to prevent future blatant militaristic aggressive actions like the occupation of the Sudetenland? And is/was it not the fact that any State which is a loser of a war and which agrees to articles of surrender embodied within which are limitations on it’s future action no longer a totally soverign State?

Which leads us back to Hitler’s Germany. Is it not true that under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was not fully soverign, and that historians have urged that Hitler should have been opposed by force of arms precisely because he violated those terms of surrender? So……what’s the diff as between Saddam and Adolf?

“Can I just be clear Brett, are you saying that you know that the MDC people want foreign military intervention, but are too scared to say ?”

I’m saying that they would be too scared to say if they did. There is no doubt that calling for “regime change” in and of itself, even through elections, has attracted charges of treason, so there is no doubt how an explicit call for military intervention would be met.
And Treason carries the death penalty.

“Finally, given how little we now know that the British and US states seemed to know about Iraq and its history—apparently substantially less than my of “Economy and Society of the Middle East” professor—it would have also been very difficult to know how to choose which groups to back, and which would have had a fighting chance. “(Dave)

Above you seem to argue that because of US and British ignorance about Iraq, we had no opition but to invade them (which was, of course, also done in a way that revealed our ignorance about the situation there.)

After the invasion of Iraq, I had a discussion with Geoff Hoon who as Minister of Defence revealed he had no idea why Britain had forces in Iraq 50 years earlier or why they had cleared us out of their country in 1958. If he did no know some basic history about our past role in Iraq, he had little chance of understanding much about our modern role.

Just prior to the 2003 invasion Saddam Hussein produced convoluted evidence to the UN which showed he had got rid of his WMD. This should have been made clear and used to give him a loss of internal status. And whilst he was running a terrible totalitarian system. it was also increasingly inefficient in its own terms. He was faced with Shia, Kurdish, internal Baathist and secular unrest. It is not clear what this would have led to, but the nature of the threats of invasion meant that the only arguments that got any serious consideration were crude “invade” v “don’t invade” stances. As Blair and Bush would not give ground, people like the “Stop the War Coalition” were not pressed to engage with the topic and come up with an their alternatives. But this does not mean that there were no alternatives – even if they had their own difficulties.

Once the invasion took place, we were (of course) into a diffferent ball game and could not just somehow put the clock back. A position which again StWC has never faced up to. But that does no mean that we have now to go unblinkered onto the other side and turn George and Tony into heroes. What they did was a huge cock-up. Ever since we have had an obligation to seek to retrieve this. Perhaps we should put your professor in charge of our efforts.

Herman argues that if Bush hadn’t invaded Iraq, he’d have been voted out of office and replaced by a Democrat who would have been prepared to act.

If we’re doing sketchy counter factuals, then surely that would have been a better alternative? The Democrats would, after all, presumably have done a bit of postwar planning, and been less likely to send a load of Republican Party donors and activists to dismantle the Iraqi state.

One of the many irony’s of both the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns
is that, pre 9/11, if one had asked which social group in each country
was most like Western social progressives in outlook and life-style, the answer would have been the Baathist and Communist supporters, respectively.

Someone asks anti-war commentators what would have been the result of leaving Saddam in power? Well, about a million Iraqis still alive, millions of people not grieving for loved ones, a functioning, albeit bankrupt, state, 4 million Iraqis(about a sixth of the pre-war population)not in exile-not to mention the erosion of international law, and an exponential increase in terrorism. What a disaster! Does anyone in their right mind believe Iraq today is a better place than 2003? You would have to be willfully blind or the scum of the earth to answer in the positive.

dave c – don’t know which Iraqis you talk to but according to the latest poll :

“Fifty-five percent of Iraqis say things in their own lives are going well, well up from 39 percent as recently as August. More, 62 percent, rate local security positively, up 19 points. And the number who expect conditions nationally to improve in the year ahead
has doubled, to 46 percent in this new national poll by ABC News, the BBC, ARD, German TV and the Japanese broadcaster NHK”

In terms of whether the invasion was right opinion is split 50/50 but for Shiites and Kurds (the victims of Saddam) they are in favour 65% and 87% respectively.

Are these Iraqis willfully blind or the scum of the earth ?

http://www.abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1060a1IraqWhereThingsStand.pdf

Quite right Harry. If only you had been Prime Minister, I’m sure we would be in a much better place right now. (I’m being sincere!)

Are these Iraqis willfully blind or the scum of the earth ?

No, but those who deliberately distort(by commission or omission) an important poll, as the one you highlight, should be ashamed of themselves. The vast majority of Iraqis blame the US for the catastrophic security situation and, interestingly, credit (former?) insurgents in the awakening councils and local militia for the improved security in their walled, ethnically cleansed enclaves. Of course security has improved in the last 12 months: the Mahadi Army won the civil war and drove sunnis into the South West of Baghdad;the sunnis, likewise, drove shia from predominantly sunni areas. This isn’t good news for the occupiers, as few look to the US for security, only fearing, in some cases, that the withdrawal of the US would lead to a genocide of their sect. Is this what ‘victory’ was meant to look like? Few doubt that an American withdrawal would lead to a victory of the shiite nationalist Sadrist movement in arab Iraq, and the probable seccession of Iraqi Kurdistan, followed by a Turkish invasion.

interestingly, credit (former?) insurgents in the awakening councils and local militia for the improved security in their walled, ethnically cleansed enclaves.

Oh really? Like the people of Basra who’ve just had their city liberated from Iranian-backed militias who were terrorising the population? Basrans are grateful to the Iraqi army, which as you must know is trained and supported by the US military.

the Mahadi Army won the civil war

The ethnic cleansing is now being reversed with Sunni families returning to areas they were expelled from in and around Baghdad. The Iraqi army has moved into Sadr City unopposed and is defeating the al-Qaeda remnants in Mosul. Sadr himself has ordered the Mahdi militia to be disbanded after the crushing losses it has suffered at the hands of the Iraqi Army. All the indications are that the Iraqi Army is gaining control of the country. That’s really upsetting you, isn’t it?

What Harry Barnes said about US & British leaders not knowing Iraq’s recent past of having British troops stationed there as recently as 50 years ago shows the incredible ignorance of those who planned (such as there was any) and carried out the Iraq debacle. With such willful and criminal ignorance of Iraqi realities, it is no wonder that things have turned out so badly. It is plain and simple that the Bush Administration lied and distorted to drive the US into invading Iraq when there was little real threat coming from Saddam. The real threat, then and now, was Iran, but Iraq seemed an easier country with much smaller population to invade, control and exploit. To conquer Iran would mean a hard and bloody war, Iraq seemed much easier. It was also important to divert attention away from the real Islamic terrorists from Saudi Arabia who were responsible for three thousand murdered on 9/11, Daniel Pearl’s brutal video-tapped beheading and many other terrorist atrocities.

Speaking of polls, here is one from March on the 5th anniversary of the US-led Invasion of Iraq. It is three months old, but I doubt if American public opinion has changed significantly in that time.
“Poll: Most Americans Say War Not Worth It: 64 Percent Say Results of War Not Worth American Lives Lost” at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/18/main3946663.shtml

Note: Had the rationale been offered before the Invasion of March 2003, that the US & its allies should go to war to free the Iraq People from Saddam’s Tyrannery, it would have been dismissed out of hand. Instead it was all sorts of scare stories about Saddam having vast numbers of WMD, launching in 45 minutes etec., all of which has since turned out to be false. That is why the majority of Americans have turned against Bush/Cheney’s Iraq War.

“I suspect it wouldn’t have been nearly as bad in 1991 as it is in 2003 because, a) the population at that point hadn’t been so brutalised (violence begets violence, remember)”
The Irie.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,356577,00.html

Well at least Saddam was “contained” eh?

Harry Barnes, where you write the nature of the threats of invasion meant that the only arguments that got any serious consideration were crude “invade” v “don’t invade” stances, I fail to see how the threat of invasion prevented anyone proposing or discussing alternatives. If anyone had a serious alternative that surely was the time to speak up. Do you feel there was an alternative proposal that was not seriously discussed? If so, what was it?

That bit is fucking ridiculous and unworthy of HP.

I want to break something.

“It’s all about the he said she said bullshit…”

Ann Onn:”(which is why the Apartheid leadership tried so hard to fight against, burgle and bomb ANC people and supporters in the UK and beyond)”

The fact that a regime reacts disproportionately against particular acts or people is not necessarily evidence of the effectiveness of those acts/people.
It is evidence of the petty spiteful paranoia of repressive regimes world wide.

I speak from experience, of the kind of thing the SA regime tried to do to me and my family and did to people I knew. Your snide attempt at presuming what “some people like Ami” think is misdirected.

“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” – Martin Luther King.

“Army: Iraq Occupation was Understaffed” at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/29/world/main4217961.shtml

At what point does utter incompetence invalidate the most worthy of projects? Certainly the stupidity of the Bush Administration, both civilian and military has reached that point some time ago.

Danish Cartoonist: In the build up to the invasion of Iraq, the terms of the debate were polarised into the immediate (and often crude)cases for going in or staying out. This was because the two camps were being pushed to unite as best they could around their immediate objectives. There was little scope to develop a third stance which recognised Saddam Hussein’s internal weaknesses and the need to faciliate internal forces who were seeking change, whilst going to the aid of the people of Iraq through moves such as the removal of economic sanctions. Indeed such a third stance had a prior requirement – to halt the intended invasion, especially by pointing to the ethnic turmoil which could arise and the alternative need to seek to improve the conditions of the Iraqi people. There were the honourable positions of those who had opposed economic sanctions over a period of time and of those in Cardri who had opposed repression in Iraq and looked to enhance democratic alternatives. For a serious synthesis of such views to develop, Blair needed to step back and look at the possibility of there being a serious alternative to shock and awe. A third way could then have developed. Unfortunately, Blair (of all people) never really knew what a third way was.

“The massive death toll post-invasion reinforces the argument that there was no alternative to the invasion.” (Danish Cartoonist).

This is from your earlier comment. I can only assume that this means that if we had faciliated descent by Shia, Kurds, Secularists and amongst the Baath that they would all have ended up slaughtering each other once Saddam was removed. This is to ignore the fact that ethnic conflict in Iraq was stimulated by the invasion and was aided by the fact that was it was absorbed into violence that was being rationalised as being part of the insurrection. The take-off to the insurrection/ethnic conflict was also stimulated, in part, by intial Al Qaeda and other imports who rushed across the unguarded borders in Iraq in the early days. What a clandestine Iraq needed encouraging to develop was its own loose form of ANC.

Harry Barnes,
Given that Saddam’s Fedayeen, who organised much of the initial insurgency, were formed as much to put down internal dissent as to fight an invasion, (according to this interview with Col. HR McMaster,) and given that the post-invasion sectarian civil war was a deliberate strategy by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who had been given sanctuary in Iraq prior to the invasion, and given that the vast majority of people targeted by the insurgency have been Iraqis, not Coalition troops, and given again Saddam’s previous brutal repression of internal dissent, yes, I have a hard time imagining how any internal movement to overthrow the Baathists could possibly have escaped massive violence.

It’s possible to speculate that such a scenario might not have been as bad as what happened post-invasion, but it’s also possible to imagine that it might have been much worse, with surrounding countries less inhibited from intervening.

An internal Baathist coup might have been much less bloody, but I don’t see how that could be considered a great solution, plus it had been tried and had failed.

The idea that a broad ANC-like coalition in exile with widespread internal popular support could have been formed is attractive, but this was after all what Chalabi and Co. were trying to do. The idea that lifting sanctions would have helped such a process seems to be contradicted by your invocation of a South African model. Lifting sanctions would surely have strengthened the regime, making it even easier for Saddam to suppress internal dissent.