|
|
 Posted July 24th, 2008 at 9:26AM
Steve Chapman has a succinct op-ed regarding McCain’s dilemma every time he attacks Obama over a time table for Iraq.
…
Despite creeping toward withdrawal himself, McCain continues to lambaste Obama for setting a timetable. But if the current policy is the stunning success depicted by McCain, it should be eminently practical to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis by the middle of 2010. If it is impossible to do that, more than seven years after the occupation began, how can McCain say the existing strategy is working?
The Arizona senator sounded frustrated this week, insisting that Obama was “completely wrong” in opposing the Bush administration’s escalation of the war in January 2007. “The fact is, if we had done what Sen. Obama wanted to do, we would have lost,” he declared. “And we would have faced a wider war. And we would have had greater problems in Afghanistan and the entire region.”
What McCain omits is that if he himself had been right all the times before 2007 that he said things were going fine, no surge would have been needed. He’s like a weatherman who forecasts clear skies every day and, when the rain finally lets up after a week, expects a standing ovation for his accuracy.
If we had done what Obama wanted to do back in 2002, we would not have lost—because we would not have invaded Iraq to start with. We would not have suffered 4,100 dead and 30,000 wounded or burned through hundreds of billions of dollars.
We also would not have diverted ourselves from the correct focus of the war on terrorism. “Greater problems in Afghanistan and the entire region”? Apparently McCain hasn’t noticed that we got those in spite of the surge, or more likely because of it.
The troop escalation has not been the complete failure Obama suggested it would be, but it has fallen far short of the triumph claimed by Republicans. The level of violence, though down from the very worst months of the war, remains at levels comparable with 2005, which were considered awful at the time.
Iraqi civilians died at a higher rate in the first four months of this year than in the same period of 2005. The number of attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces is about the same. Here is McCain’s definition of success: returning to a pace of bloodshed that was once regarded as intolerable.
…
I resisted the urge to quote the whole thing, only half of it, so click on over and read it yourself. It’s such common sense, it makes you wonder why anyone would even need to state it. But yeah. It needs to be said.
Also consider reading this John Dickerson article on Slate. “McCain is attacking too much and indiscriminately. The barrage undermines his brand, takes time away from telling voters what he might do for them, and looks awfully old-timey in a year when voters want a new brand. He should go on the offensive, yes, but in targeted forays.”
Posted April 4th, 2006 at 11:18AM
Lest we forget…
Squeezed to death
Half a million children have died in Iraq since UN sanctions were imposed – most enthusiastically by Britain and the US. Three UN officials have resigned in despair. Meanwhile, bombing of Iraq continues almost daily. John Pilger investigates
Saturday March 4, 2000
Wherever you go in Iraq’s southern city of Basra, there is dust. It gets in your eyes and nose and throat. It swirls in school playgrounds and consumes children kicking a plastic ball. “It carries death,” said Dr Jawad Al-Ali, a cancer specialist and member of Britain’s Royal College of Physicians. “Our own studies indicate that more than 40 per cent of the population in this area will get cancer: in five years’ time to begin with, then long afterwards. Most of my own family now have cancer, and we have no history of the disease. It has spread to the medical staff of this hospital. We don’t know the precise source of the contamination, because we are not allowed to get the equipment to conduct a proper scientific survey, or even to test the excess level of radiation in our bodies. We suspect depleted uranium, which was used by the Americans and British in the Gulf War right across the southern battlefields.”
As the news of today focuses on Saddam Hussein being charged with the 1980s genocidal campaign against the Kurds, I heartily recommend everyone to turn back to the state of Iraq in 2000, after nearly a decade of sanctions. That Guardian article is good, as is Globalissues.org’s page on the sanctions.
It’s all too easy to cry foul over the 2003 invasion of Iraq – as well we should. There is no doubt that the humanitarian aspect was quite far removed from the typical neo-con’s rationale for the invasion. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al., are no humanitarians.
But neither was Clinton, John Major / Tony Blair, or any of the other leaders of the West who were complicit in the deaths of over a million. The 90s sanctions against Iraq were akin to Stalin’s genocidal efforts against the Ukraine.
So what allowed it to happen? How did millions turn out to protest the 2003 invasion? Where were they the previous decade? This is a fundamental failing of the anti-war movement, and any protest movement in general. If that sense of immediacy isn’t there, then they don’t turn out. Regardless of actual circumstances.
If millions had turned out in the nineties, would Clinton have listened? It’s rhetorical – there is no point in debating it now. But today, we have an administration which publicly admits to ignoring us. What a stupid time to raise a fuss.
Should acknowledging the atrocious nature of the Clinton-era sanctions change a person’s view of the latest invasion of Iraq? It really shouldn’t. Yes, occupying Iraq has allowed us to gracefully drop the sanctions. To use a cliche – we’ve jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire. Or perhaps it’s Iraq which has done the jumping.
As the dozen or more permanent US military bases being built in Iraq make clear, we’re staying. The actual condition of Iraq and its population is irrelevant to our policy-makers. But it shouldn’t be. The air of democracy is not enough to placate them. You can’t eat a ballot, and a political figurehead does not provide clean water or steady electricity. The main objective should be improving living conditions. It’s not currently.
Could a new US administration change all of this? It’s possible. But I wouldn’t look towards the party of Clinton to solve anything. The single greatest prospect for Iraq is it’s own people. Because the “Coaliton of the Willing” is not likely to focus on the reality of the situation. And the anti-war movement has already fizzled, as it and everyone else grows tired of what’s happening to a bunch of foreigners halfway across the world. We’re content to sit here, watch the rising death toll, and smugly say, “I told you so.” We should be absolutely miserable that our predictions of a failed invasion and occupation are being proven daily.
“We are losing the war in Iraq. We are an isolated and reviled nation. We are pitiless to others weaker than ourselves. We have lost sight of our democratic ideals. Thucydides wrote of Athens’ expanding empire and how this empire led it to become a tyrant abroad and then a tyrant at home. The tyranny Athens imposed on others, it finally imposed on itself. If we do not confront the lies and hubris told to justify the killing and mask the destruction carried out in our name in Iraq, if we do not grasp the moral corrosiveness of empire and occupation, if we continue to allow force and violence to be our primary form of communication, if we do not remove from power our flag-waving, cross-bearing versions of the Taliban, we will not so much defeat dictators such as Saddam Hussein as become them.”
– Chris Hedges
It feels like a cop-out, throwing up your hands and saying that the Iraqis must get themselves out of a mess that the West created. But what’s the alternative?
Posted June 30th, 2005 at 11:10PM
The New Napalm in Iraq
Firebombing for human rights?
— By Barb Jacobs, Utne.com
June 30, 2005 Issue
First it was weapons of mass destruction. Then it was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Now it’s to spread democracy. All arguments supporting the war in Iraq have some sort of humanitarian slant that, ironically, neglects the human cost of the war.
The Independent recently reported ($$) that, unknown to British officials, the United States has used Mark-77 (MK77) firebombs, a flaming napalm-like gel that sticks to its victims, in Iraq. The Iraq Analysis Group, which researches the effects of the war on Iraqis, told The Independent that the US “apparently lied to UK officials” about its use of “internationally reviled weapons that the UK refuses to use.”
Although the British acknowledgment of American use of MK77 has caused a stir in Parliament, the issue is not new. As pointed out by Information Clearing House, last fall another UK newspaper, the Mirror, reported American use of firebombs in Fallujah, saying, “Since the American assault on Fallujah there have been reports of ‘melted’ corpses, which appeared to have napalm injuries.”
On its website, the US State Department denies reports that napalm-like weapons were used in Fallujah, but confirms that “Mark-77 firebombs … were used against enemy positions in 2003,” and maintains that it has not used any illegal weapons in Iraq.
The Independent says the US has sidestepped the UN Convention on Certain Chemical Weapons, which banned the use of incendiary weapons against civilians, by claiming the firebombs were used only against military targets. Then again, the US didn’t really have to get around it, as it’s not a party to the convention anyway.
Also check out Incinerating Iraqis; the napalm cover up.
A public service announcement, folks.
Posted March 19th, 2005 at 12:00PM
Iraqi ‘justice’ by television
Looking cowed and frightened, a young man, identified by his full name and sitting directly in front of the camera, is being bullied and browbeaten by an interrogator who remains out of the picture.
“By what authority did you do these things?”
“Sir, they led us astray with their fatwas and offering us money.”
“Do you realise that everything you did is perfidy?”
“Yes, sir.”
“This Mullah Mahdi who gave you fatwas is a dog. He is scum. I’ll get him within 72 hours and put him on TV, God willing.”
“God willing, sir.”
Ibrahim confesses to involvement in a series of attacks, and abducting and killing Iraqi policemen, national guards and others.
He says he was paid $100 (£52) per operation by his commander, or emir, who, he says, is homosexual.
It is all part of the battle to quell the insurgency in Iraq, with the interim Iraqi authorities making use of all their weapons, including propaganda.
Every night the government-run al-Iraqiya television station carries lengthy confessions, under interrogation, from people like Ibrahim, who it says are captured insurgents.
The broadcasts have stirred a lot of interest among the Iraqi people, but unease among foreign observers who see it as an echo of the ousted Baathist regime’s discredited practices.
The televised confessions, on a programme called “Terror in the Hands of Justice”, are shown at prime time every night, and are clearly aimed at shocking the Iraqi public.
For many ordinary Iraqis, accustomed for three decades to the ways of the old regime, such televised confessions – a local form of reality TV – are normal, and they find them compulsive viewing. Few seem to doubt their authenticity.
But the practice of parading prisoners making confessions obtained in questionable circumstances is way out of line with international standards of justice.
Sounds great. 
I guess attempts at ‘westernizing’ Iraq stop at economic concerns. Although I suppose this doesn’t sound awfully different from our court tv.
Posted February 13th, 2005 at 9:25PM
I wrote this about a week ago, before any of the initial results were in. This is the final draft of my article on the Iraqi elections, which will be in the college alt. rag, due to hit stands March 1st.
The January 30th elections in Iraq were being hailed a success practically before the polls had closed. President Bush readily declared that the Iraqis had embraced democracy, and rejected the “anti-democratic ideology of the terrorists.†The number dead – only a few dozen – was suppose to (bizarrely enough) reinforce this position.
However, such unfettered optimism before the results were even in is cause for alarm. What will the recent elections in Iraq really accomplish? Will they bring legitimacy to something that – at the base of the matter – is still an occupation? This has yet to be seen, but common sense tells us to be more cautious than our government and media have been so far.
By Sunday night, turnout estimates as high as 72% were being circulated widely, a figure the mainstream media immediately clung to. It was eventually revealed that these estimates were made even before the polls had closed, by Farid Ayar, the spokesman for the Independent Electoral Commission for Iraq. Ayar later downplayed his initial numbers, saying they were “only guessing†and based on “word-of-mouth estimates gathered informally.â€
Since then, the estimates continue to fall. And even when they are confirmed (likely to happen by the time you’re reading this), the emphasis still shouldn’t be strictly on the official turnout – the 1967 presidential election in Saigon netted turnout numbers into the 80s.
The elections were primarily voting for a 275-member National Assembly, which will then draft a permanent constitution for Iraq. Voters chose from more than 100 lists, which were compromised of loose coalitions of parties and special interests – more than 7000 candidates all told.
Members for the National Assembly will then be chosen proportionally from the amount of votes a list received – so say a particular list received 20% of the vote. That list would then make up 20% of the National Assembly, or 55 members. The first 55 candidates on that list would be selected.
You might think a single list receiving 20% of the vote is a little high. But according to provisional results at the time of this writing, the United Iraqi Alliance netted nearly 50% of the vote alone.
In some ways, the system is remarkable – I know people who would kill for proportional representation in the United States – myself included. However, what looks good on paper might not work as well in a war ravaged country.
To bring any legitimacy to the occupation, the January elections had to be truly democratic. For if they aren’t perceived as such, then the very purpose is defeated out of hand. Because the elections aren’t simply for electing representatives – they’re an attempt to legitimize the new Iraq. And the only prerequisite for this new Iraq, in the minds of the current US administration, is having a stable, pro-US government in power. Elections are simply a perk, the means to a foregone conclusion.
One general red flag was the use of purple ink to dye the thumbs of those who had already voted. It’s a primitive but inexpensive solution to prevent people from voting multiple times. The problem is that we used the same system in Afghanistan – and there were widespread allegations of the ink being easily wiped off.
Whether or not the allegations are well-founded, however, is ultimately of little consequence – there was likely far worse voter fraud to prevent. And unfortunately, there was not a single foreign election monitoring body in Iraq on the day of the election – they were instead “observing†from across the border in Jordan. The interim Iraqi government had monitoring officials on hand, but does this government really have the legitimacy to self-monitor?
Another alarming aspect of the election was the inability of candidates or lists to actively campaign for votes. There was an official campaign period in the month leading up to the election, but the threat of violence (understandably) kept many from campaigning. Iraqi civilians were being told to remember the number of the list they wanted to vote for. Without knowing who were on the lists, or what their politics were, many had to rely on endorsements from popular leaders. For instance, Iranian Shi’a cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani endorsed list number 169 (the United Iraqi Alliance). But who exactly were the candidates on this list? Who knows!
How democratic is an election in which you can’t even name who you’re going to vote for?
Before election day, polls suggested that Sunni turnout was going to be much lower than their Shi’a or Kurdish counterparts – the result of Sunni misgivings about the election, as well as calls for a boycott by prominent Sunnis. Provisional results are indeed showing low Sunni turnout, and this will lead to an over-representation of Shi’a and Kurds in the National Assembly. The boycott will likely make Sunni fears of disempowerment a reality. The blame cannot be pinned on anyone, however it is a further blow to the validity of the National Assembly.
Last summer, there was the purported handover of power, the official end of the occupation. However, it was a farce, in the fact that the US still wields the power in Iraq even today. Nothing changed following the June handover of power – it was irrelevant political maneuvering. For these elections to be successful, there needs to be meaningful improvements in the quality of life in Iraq. But with the Bush administration refusing to provide any sort of timetable for the end of military operations, and indeed with new US military bases in Iraq being made permanent every day, the prospects for Iraq look dim.
People grow tired of the comparisons to Vietnam. I’ve grown tired of them. However as Iraq stretches on it’s hard not to notice the growing similarities. The 1967 elections in Saigon were to provide legitimacy for the government we installed in South Vietnam. It didn’t work in that instance, as history has shown. And there is no reason to believe that elections will change anything now, as long as America is on the ground in Iraq.
—
And be sure to check out the latest This Modern World, which deals with the issue perfectly: Turning the Corner
Posted February 10th, 2005 at 3:02PM
“Is it a perfect resistance? No. How could a resistance be pretty when the occupation is so brutal and ugly. The senseless violence inflicted upon the Iraqi people by the occupation results in a violent response. It was no different when the Algerians fought the French to a standstill in the early Sixties of the last century. When a leader of the Algerian resistance was asked why they often bombed cafes and killed [French] civilians, he replied: ‘Give us planes and helicopters and then we will only target French troops.’”
— Tariq Ali, February 7, 2005
I’ve added two blogs written by Iraqis to my link list, check them out –
Baghdad Burning and Free Iraq.
Also, on a completely unrelated note, I’ve also added a link to The Endless, the website for all your comic book information needs. Check the forums – a great, friendly place to post.
Posted February 3rd, 2005 at 6:02PM
The Iraq Election Primer
Written a week before the election, try reading it, and then keep watching the news over the new few weeks. See how David Enders’ expectations faired.
Meanwhile…
“Coalition troops and Iraqi security forces may be responsible for up to 60% of conflict-related civilian deaths in Iraq — far more than are killed by insurgents, confidential records obtained by the BBC’s Panorama programme reveal.” As the BBC reported recently, these numbers were compiled by Iraq’s Ministry of Health, in part because of the refusal of the Bush and Blair administrations to do so. In the case of Fallujah, where the U.S. military estimated 2,000 people were killed during the recent assault on the city, at least 1,200 of the dead are believed to have been non-combatant civilians.
And on the home front…
Elections don’t end on Election Day. The Presidential vote has just been finalized and John Kerry picked up another 500,000 votes to lose to President Bush by almost exactly 3 million. (Yeah, I know, he does better when he’s not campaigning.)
…
The actual polls decided the Presidential Race, but the National Exit Polls established the meaning of the election. The “liberal†American media used the polls—exit and actual–to twist the meaning of the election into being a mandate for “Moral Valuesâ€. This view has been somewhat revised. Analysts observed that while 22% of the electorate did select “Moral Values†as their key issue, economic issues were disaggregated while moral issues weren’t. 20% said the “Economy†was their most important issue while 19% said “Terrorismâ€. Few have bothered to point out that all were within the margin of +/-3% error, so, in reality, they are tied for most important issue. The Moral Values question wasn’t asked in 2000, so we don’t even know whether the issue is increasing in importance.
|
Tags: 
