Category Archives: Iraq

Manufacturing A Storm In The D Camp

Democrats, Elections 2008, Hillary Clinton, Iraq

Howard Dean has jumped in; Gore was volunteered as mediator, Pelosi piped up, Obama backers stomped their feet in fury, and demanded Hillary quit the competition—who is manufacturing this melodrama; this storm in the D Camp?

Don’t switch off when I say the media. Since when has a good political tussle become a cause for such breast-beating? What kind of a people can be led to denounce a vigorous race for the highest office in the land because it is, well, vigorous?

I’m describing a reality shaped by pussies. I won’t postulate about media motivation—why has the malpracticing media reflexively, rather than intentionally, framed a dynamic debate as a crisis?

It is possible that this mindless monolith’s hunger for Hussein has driven them to manufacture a reality out of thin air? I’m not sure these people are even smart enough to jump a level of abstraction and Meta-analyze their motivation, and, by extension, control their derangement. I think it’s all gut with this gormless lot.

But for heaven sake, settle down; calm down to a blind panic. As it is, elections are dishonest enough a process. Don’t buy into the phony supposition that a crisis is unfolding because two Democrats are battling bitterly over the party’s nomination. (If only Republicans had more than one mummified candidate.)

Admittedly, the Florida and Michigan delegate situation is disturbing. It’s obvious to me that party procedure cannot trump the truth as represented by the voters and their votes. This does not seem as plain to pundits and party officials.

Another thing that has been cobbled up is Hillary’s lying—her depiction as a pathological liar is humbug! Hillary embellishes on a few episodes in her life—she has a bit of an Arabic imagination; like Scheherazade of “A Thousand Arabian Nights”—and suddenly she’s a pathological liar?

This from pundits and politicians—”idio-experts” who’ve demonstrated their allergy to the truth over and over again. Iraq anyone? When it comes to grave issues of policy that affect lives and the future of this republic, Iraq is the cardinal lie. All those hammering home the message that Hillary is a liar for embellishing on a trip she made during another unjust war make me sick.

Come clean about the lies that led to the war in Iraq and that keep it going before fraudulently fashioning a fib into a lie.

Updated: Iraq 5 Years On: CBC Ignores American Anti-War Right

Ann Coulter, Iraq, Journalism, Just War, Media, Ron Paul

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation commemorated the invasion of Iraq with an outstanding Fifth-Estate segment: “THE LIES THAT LED TO WAR: The Political, Diplomatic, and Media Spin that Convinced Americans to Invade Iraq.”

An important point made was that America is no closer to a reckoning that this “adventure” was a great wrong, if not an outright evil. Ann Coulter provided a strident example of this hubris. Tossing her magnificent mane, she mocked Canadians for not getting the goods on how good things were in Iraq. This was how democracies shaped up, Ann “argued.”

A disgrace really. Cruel too.

A question to the fine chroniclers of the war at the CBC: There is a small number of American reporters, pundits, and a few politicians that has always opposed this abominable invasion on the grounds that it violated natural rights, Just War Theory, the American Constitution, the comity of nations—and practically every single stricture familiar to babes on the playground.

(SEE “Just War for Dummies”
& “Unnatural Lawlessness”)

Rep. Ron Paul protested tirelessly; as did this writer (starting in September 2002 in an editorial for Canada’s national newspaper, The Globe And Mail) and her non-Beltway affiliated libertarian colleagues.

(SEE “Why So Many Americans Don’t Support Attacking Iraq,” except that there weren’t so many Americans, despite the titular hope the Globe and Mail expressed.)

Why does the CBC fail to mention our much-marginalized faction? Is it because we are, for the most, of the Old, classically liberal American Right?

Why keep featuring the fiendish Coulter, Malkin, and their Canadian copycat, one Rachel Marsden? [SEE “Lethal Weapons: Neocon Groupies“] Why not help consign them to the dustbin of punditry and look to the principled few (talented too) who stood for the soundest of philosophical principles?

We exist!

I grieved when the death toll in Iraq stood at 289—a lousy landmark I also happened to protest in an op-ed for the Canadian Globe And Mail. (SEE “Bush’s Warfare State”)

I continue to mourn now that it has climbed to 4000—yesterday. My grief at the trashing of Iraqi lives has been a constant in my writing over the last five years—in columns and blog entries alike. (The Archive is here)

Who chose to nominate the average suffering Iraqi as “Person of the Year”? Certainly not Time magazine.

(SEE “My Person of the Year: The Average Iraqi”)

Update (March 25): The Man From Texas and his simply stated, straightforward truth-telling:

“Five years into the invasion and occupation of Iraq, untold hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead; some two million Iraqis have fled the country as refugees; and the Iraqi Christian community – one of the oldest in the world – has been decimated more completely than even under the Ottoman occupation or the rule of Saddam Hussein.
 
On the US side, nearly four thousand Americans have lost their lives fighting in Iraq and many thousands more are horribly wounded. Our own senior military officers warn that our military is nearly broken by the strain of the Iraq occupation. The Veterans Administration is overwhelmed by the volume of disability claims from Iraq war veterans.
 
A study by Nobel Prize economist Joseph Stiglitz concludes that the cost of the war in Iraq could be at least $3 trillion. The economic consequences of our enormous expenditure in Iraq are beginning to make themselves known as we fall into recession and possibly worse…”

Update # II: Support the Draft…

Foreign Policy, Government, Iraq, Military, Politics, The State

For politicians, bureaucrats, and their family members.

Serving in Iraq is a “potential death sentence,” a member of the foreign service moaned. I have “post traumatic stress disorder” after serving there for a year, another whined. Who will take care of our children if we (gasp) die, was a complaint one audacious emissary of the American state (in good times) sounded.

Now they know how soldiers and their families feel when subjected to back-door drafts in the form of indefinitely extended tours-of-duty; now the political parasites know how taxpayers feel about a war that is sapping their savings and making it hard for them to provide for their retirement and their children. (Ordinary Americans don’t have hefty, free pensions and perks for posterity, such as the blood suckers at the State Department enjoy.)

Update # I: In response to John Smith’s letter: Make sure you read your contract; it is the solemn duty of members of the foreign service to go where they are posted.

Update # II/Nov. 8: To those who keep wanting to spare the foreign service from hardship: if you’re a friend of freedom, and wish to see the state shrink—or at least cease availing itself indiscriminately of tax dollars for its endless exploits—you ought to stop coddling its recruits. Why on earth would you wish to create a risk-free workplace for privileged government workers? The riskier their endeavor the less likely they are to engage in callous and confiscatory practices. I say let as much of the state apparatus as possible shoulder the consequences of in Iraq policy.

Update # III: As you can see from his demands, John want’s to work for government, but at the same time be able to pick and choose to serve in the promotion of only those policies he supports. Unfortunately, given the excessive power unelected bureaucrats wield, they’ll probably get what they want.
On another matter, the public sector, incidentally, was never supposed to be able to strike; that’s a later socialistic privilege they were granted. In addition, government employee, politicians included, should not be allowed to vote. This is because they are paid from taxes garnished involuntarily from taxpayers, and will always vote to increase their own powers and wages.

Iraq: The Only Way Forward

Economy, Energy, Iran, Iraq, Middle East, Military, Socialism

Two of the seven soldiers who wrote a controversial New-York Times op-ed, “critical of some elements of the war just last month,” have died in Iraq. “Among the column’s statements: ‘In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear.’”

In an interview with Jim Lehrer yesterday (as the cable cretins were babbling about O. J. Simpson), Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, amidst many obfuscations, brought himself to agree with Lehrer that “the casualty rates among American troops are about now what they were a year ago.”

Readers ask what I think ought to be done about Iraq. If the analysis in the column “The Petraeus-Crocker Crock“ is correct, as many of you have conceded, then the conclusions ought to follow closely.

We are powerless to do a thing about “the religious animus between Shia and Sunni that dates back to AD 680.” If anything, we are solely responsible for inflaming the vendetta by removing Saddam, the strongman that kept the lid on the cauldron of depravity that has now boiled over because of the invasion. Our soldiers can continue to serve as sacrificial lambs, giving their lives futilely in order to separate the warring sides. What on earth for? Cui bono?

As mentioned in the column—a no-brainer really—the American occupation is the other flame accelerator. Our presence there is contributing to the chaos. The Iraqis in all their factions hate our collective guts. Those who know the culture and have lived in the Middle East understand that the exquisite politeness with which Anbaris, for example, are treating their new-found American friends masks a cold hatred. Americans are naïve about the people they keep messing with. Michael Ware, the hardnosed reporter who has lived in the region for years, gets the unromantic, unvarnished picture exactly right:

“[W]e have to be careful about what we hear Iraqis say when we’re surrounded by American soldiers. If we’re on an embed and we’re dealing with these Iraqi forces, they’re going to be very careful in what they say, because their American paymasters essentially are standing around. We need to talk to these groups in their undiluted state. We were with those groups, not with Americans. And, to be honest, I have known many of these organizations for years. They hate al Qaeda, no problem. That’s a shared American agenda. They are vehemently anti-Iranian, which also makes them vehemently anti-Maliki government. They believe this is essentially Iranian influence. So, no, they don’t want to work with this central government. And this central government is working with them under great sufferance, being forced by the U.S.”

In other words, what they say is not what they are thinking and scheming.
As to what will transpire once we withdraw, listen to Ware’s words, when asked for his overall impression of the president’s imbecilic speech:

“Well, … my first impression is, wow. I mean, it’s one thing to return to the status quo, to the situation we had nine months ago, with 130,000 U.S. troops stuck here for the foreseeable future. It’s another thing to perpetuate the myth. I mean, I won’t go into detail, like the president’s characterizations of the Iraqi government as an ally, or that the people of Anbar, who support the Sunni insurgency, asked America for help, or to address this picture of a Baghdad that exists only in the president’s mind.”

Ware expounds on Bush’s parallel universe:

“Let me just refer to this, what the president said, that, if America were to be driven out of Iraq, extremists of all strains would be emboldened. They are now. Al Qaeda could gain new recruits and new sanctuaries. They have that now. Iran would benefit from the chaos and be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region. It is now. Iraq would face a humanitarian crisis. It does now. And that we would leave our children a far more dangerous world. That’s happening now.” (Emphasis added)

It’s done. We broke it. Since the actions taken by Bush to improve Iraq caused it to break, it follows that no amount of further “improvements” will do anything but break the place some more. We are incapable of fixing it because of what we did (The Original Sin of invasion, if you will), who we are (invaders and aggressors), what we wrought (destroy the place), and what we symbolize (invaders who destroyed Iraq).

How difficult is it for readers of this space to follow this simple logic/drift? Expressions such as the road to hell is paved with good intentions, or the idea that you can kill with kindness—these all go to illustrate that it is quite possible to do evil while firmly believing you are doing good. Americans refuse to accept this because they cannot seem to see things from the perspective of the people they insist on “helping.” It’s a pathology–terminally self-righteous–to only see one side, and believe that that is the totality of the reality at hand.

The only way out is to withdraw completely. If readers intend to repeat that Iraq will then fall into chaos, please, at least do me the courtesy of reading (above) Ware again (in my opinion one of the finest reporters in the field). Iraq is in chaos. It may in fact improve once we remove our imperious boots from the Iraqi backs.

After withdrawing, we must work out a system of reparations for individual Iraqis. Of the logistics I’m not clear, but it is the right thing to do for individuals whose country and future we’ve destroyed. Next, instead of threatening Syria, one of two countries that has taken in millions of refugees of our creation, Americans need to assist the refugees in Syria and Jordan with private funds. These nations are housing the millions displaced by our actions. How dumb is it to threaten them? Do we seek to bomb the Iraqi refugees again, now that they’ve fled to Jordan and Syria?

Once we leave, some Saddam-like strongman will fill the power vacuum left. Will there be massacres? Sure; just like there are now. (We should have thought about that before the invasion. Or our revered leaders, and the masses that blindly fell behind them, ought to have read about Tony Blair’s philosophical forerunner, Gertrude Bell, and what happened to the British in Iraq circa 1920. When Americans invaded Iraq, they didn’t know Shiite from Shinola.)

We had it good with Saddam because he was secular, an enemy of fundamentalist Islam. Can we have back what, in our folly, we fouled up? No. The dictator to emerge from the ruins of Iraq will impose Sharia, pray to the hidden Imam, and compel women to walk about in black nose bags.

Let this be a cautionary tale. Hopefully we’ve learned our lesson. But the idea that we can rehabilitate what we ruined is delusional—a function of a collective mindset that rejects reality and its lessons.

I can hear the shrieks, “Iran; Iraq will belong to Iran. The nukes, the oil, omigod, blah, blah, blah.” Oh for heaven’s sake, get a grip. We delivered Iraq to Iran. Live with it or continue to be bled bit-by-bit by an insurgency that is way stronger than we are. We can wipe Iraq and Iran off the map with one of our nukes. The idea that the new Shia axis is a threat to us is not a serious one. Israel has more to fear, of course. Not America. Israel will have to figure out how to neutralize Iran’s arsenal.

Oil independence? I can never understand the protectionist, bellyaching about oil independence. Has anyone heard of trade? Perhaps if we traded more with Iran, instead of boycotting their wares, they’d be less belligerent. Trade is the best antidote to war. Think clearly: Iran has to sell its oil. That’s its livelihood. We need to buy it. Voila! Trade! Oil independence is a foolish leftist notion. Do I grow carrots in my backyard so as to become less dependent on Costco? Why would I? Costco needs to sell its fabulous produce; I want to buy it. Case closed. The idea of oil independence belongs with the global warming wombats.

Over and out.