If You Really Loved Me You'd Let Me Eat Your Brain

The question is, is a military invasion the best way to prevent such behavior on the part of tyrants particularly given that said dictator, Saddam Hussein, was a beneficiary of American largesse for years? Donald Rumsfeld himself, acting on behalf of President Reagan, handed the guy anthrax in the mid-1980s. We didn't really care what old Saddam did to his own people as long as cheap oil keep comin'.

And do you remember Vietnam? The grisly photographs, the daily tally of body counts — ours and theirs — presented as "kill ratios," the intense coverage of public protests against the war.

During the Vietnam era, whether for good or for bad (take your pick), it was unequivocally the media, through its close scrutiny and critical exposure of the government's conduct of the war and its effects on both U.S. service personnel and their families and the Vietnamese people, that produced the negative reaction on the part of the American people that finally and belatedly spurred our government to bring that sad chapter of American history to its end.

The reporting on the war in Iraq could not be more different. I can only suppose that I was correct when, during the early days of this conflict, I argued that the administration policy of "embedding" reporters was really a way of "getting them in bed with" the administration — that is, squelching criticism before it arose.

I can only say now, "I guess it worked."

Posted by: chinadoll | 18 April 2005

While others argued, Marla acted. She gave her young life to help the innocent victims of the Iraq war. At 28, she represented the best of America.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/04/18/marla/index.html

Posted by: Betzee | 18 April 2005

It might be a surprise to some posters that the U.S. armed forces cannot be deployed in a war of liberation only in defense of the United States. Hence in Vietnam we were preventing those dominoes from falling under Communist leadership that would strengthen our cold War adversary the USSR--that was the rationale for our involvement in what was essentially a civil war.

In the case of Iraq, U.S. armed forces were deployed owing to the imminent threat posed by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. It was only after they were demonstrated to have been weapons of mass deception that a new rationale emerged which would provide domestic legitimacy to our invasion that was not sanctioned by international law: by promoting freedom in Iraq we were strengthening our national defense. No evidence has ever been provided to support this highly debatable assertion I would like to point out.

Under these circumstances those who have served are perfectly justified in questioning the shifting rationales for our invasion and occupation of Iraq. Indeed, I have met people who have served one or even two tours who question why we went there and what good will come of it but are still justifiably proud of their own service. One can also oppose the war but support the troops--there's no contradiction at all.

Posted by: Joe | 20 April 2005

To reiterate the Rev’s question: ‘How could anti-war people continue their opposition to the UN-sanctioned invasion and removal of Saddam Hussein if they were standing on the edge of a pit containing the bodies thousands of murdered men, women, and children?’ It is interesting that people against the war seem to have blinders on concerning Hussein’s butchery. The past regime gets a pass, hundreds of thousands of victims are forgotten because America used war to oust Hussein. If war (which bumper stickers inform me ‘is not the answer’) was not the answer to ending this butchery, what is the anti-war solution to the reign of this tyrant? More sanctions? More condemnations from the UN?

In answer to the Rev’s question chinadoll asked her own question: is war the best way to oust a tyrant (The Rev answered yes, and in this case I agree). Next, to address the above question chinadoll brings up Vietnam and imbedded reporters… Still no opinion on anti-war solutions to Hussein’s reign.

In answer to the Rev’s question Betzee brings up a totally unrelated point.

In answer to the Rev’s question Joe questions the Bush/Cheney junta’s shifting rationales for the war. Joe, I commend you, I think you were closest to actually addressing the question.

Since other posters are posing their own questions, I will follow suit: If the US had nothing to gain, would you have support a war against a country that was killing hundreds of thousands of it’s own civilians? I would like to point out that since the US would have nothing to gain, in my hypothetical question, your conscience would be clear. It would be a noble undertaking; Americans would die to save an imperiled populace. Or would it be more noble to not interfere and let them die?

Posted by: 3xhar | 21 April 2005

"It was only after they were demonstrated to have been weapons of mass deception that a new rationale emerged"

In my opinion, a new rationale shouldn't have been necessary. It is inappropriate to judge a decision based on information that has only become available *after* the decision was made. At the time the decision was made to invade Iraq, *everyone* in the *world* believed, based on the best available evidence, that Iraq had weapons they shouldn't ought to have had. You can't say it was the wrong decision by pointing to evidence that wasn't available at the time of the decision.

I've always been ambivalent about this war. I think, based on the evidence available at the time, the U.N. would have been entirely justified in calling for troops to be sent in, but when they failed to do so, I'm not sure that gave the U.S. the right to do it.

I've always found incoherent the argument that "But we gave Saddam [weapons/money/support/etc.] for years!" Our past support of a regime does not excuse whatever atrocities they have committed since then. Or even *while* we supported them. By that logic, Britain couldn't have done anything when Germany invaded France, because they had previously let them get away with invading Poland. If it is wrong to support regimes that commit atrocities, then our past support was at best a compromise of our principles to further some other goal, and at worst an outright mistake. Smacking them down now is just rectifying that past mistake/compromise.

Posted by: Salvius | 21 April 2005

"If the US had nothing to gain, would you have support a war against a country that was killing hundreds of thousands of it’s own civilians?"

No, although with the caveat that I am assuming truly, absolutely, "nothing to gain" (including nothing to lose by staying out of it).

A grateful populace in that country, or esteem in the eyes of other countries elsewhere, would both be things I would consider as "gain", even though they're somewhat abstract and don't quite fit on a standard profit/loss ledger.

Posted by: Salvius | 21 April 2005

Here's my two cents which are rather long winded because I can't type on the site--it has to be transferred.

As for anti-war protesters still critical of the U.S. invasion of Iraq despite physical evidence of Saddam's atrocities toward his own people, remember this is not the only such case nor the only military nvasion which has been legitimated as a humanitarian effort. (While there is a genocide convention which allows for the deployment of U.S. troops, none of that was debated during the run-up to the war in 2003.)

When I worked in Vietnam in the late 1990s many Vietnamese asked me in genuine puzzlement why their country had been put under an embargo (engineered by the U.S) that resulted in great hardship after they had liberated the Cambodian people from the murderous rule of Pol Pot in 1979. Clearly, he was the worst of the worst--in a category separate from Saddam.

The answer of course is the same as what others have made reference to in this thread: the Vietnamese didn't go into Cambodia to liberate the undeniably suffering Cambodian people but because Pol Pot's forces were making incursions into their territory. Had the Vietnamese left immediately after routing the Khmer Rouge they would have been heroes. But they got bogged down in nation building which means trying to install a regime friendly to the liberators. Ditto, we didn't go into Iraq to free the Iraqi people--that became the rationale when there turned out to be no weapons of mass destruction never mind "imminent threat."

As for the response that it doesn't matter whether we gave Saddam aid or not it was not an endorsement of his policies I've heard that one too. While in China the atrocities of the Pol Pot regime came to light which was a surprise to many Chinese people since Pol Pot was an ally of China's against the Vietnamese. And the answer was the same as provided above: we never endorsed his policies in exchange for material aid which was intended for defensive purposes.

Hmmm. The problem with the good guys versus bad guys world view of the Bush administration is that it can't accommodate age-old rivalries that drive local politics in many multi-ethnic societies. Nor can it accommodate nationalism. This is what we're butting up against in Iraq where the situation is still quite dicey conrary to the expectations of the war planners in Washington few of whom had ever set foot in the Middle East outside of Jerusalem. Instead of moving ahead on national business, for example, the newly elected National Assembly has been discussing whether the U.S. military owes a newly elected but anti-American legislator an apology for roughing him up at a border crossing.

Posted by: Betzee | 21 April 2005

Big long response over at http://salvius23.blogspot.com/2005/04/sins-of-fathers.html.

Posted by: Salvius | 21 April 2005

Betzee wrote ## As for anti-war protesters still critical of the U.S. invasion of Iraq despite physical evidence of Saddam's atrocities toward his own people, remember this is not the only such case nor the only military nvasion which has been legitimated as a humanitarian effort. ##

I’ll grant you your point. This is not the only invasion legitimized as a humanitarian effort, this is not a unique rationale for invasion. However, you still haven’t shed any light on the motivation of people against the war, especially in relation to the mass murders committed by Saddam. Would any other solution have stopped these killings? If your answer to that question is ‘no’, then you really have two choices to rationalize your decision: Let the killing continue, American blood should not be shed to save them; or, use force to oust the regime that is doing the killing.

Betzee also wrote: ## As for the response that it doesn't matter whether we gave Saddam aid or not it was not an endorsement of his policies I've heard that one too. ##

My point of view on this is a little different from yours, maybe closer to Salvius’. As far as past or current US administrations endorsing Saddam’s policies, to me that is an irrelevant point if you’re discussing current geo-politics and the decision to go to war. If the Iraqi regime in power during the Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II presidencies was acting counter to American interests (the prevailing belief of world wide intelligence services indicated nuclear, biological threats, etc) then that’s what should motivate the decision. The fact that we aided Saddam in the past doesn’t matter if he’s now your enemy. I’ve never been able to see what point people who mentioned the aid Saddam received from the US were trying to make. Baffling.

My old grandpa Mort would have said, ‘I had a great dog once, name was Clem. Now Clem, he went and got himself bit by some critter and he got himself the rabies. I had to put him down myself. That’s all I got to say about that.’ You see, Mort understood that just because you used to have a certain relationship with the dog, that relationship is subject to change. And when a good dog goes bad, sometimes that dog’s got to go. Not baffling.

Posted by: 3xhar | 21 April 2005

The first part is in reference to my earlier posting but is intended to show agreement, I think!, with the Reverend's posting regarding realpolitik as the basis of foreign policy, not humanitarism, which tends to inject outsiders into conflicts they have very limited understanding of.

Three decades after the fall of Saigon to the Vietnamese communists -- on April 30, 1975 -- the domino theory rationale seems naive and misguided. Far from being instruments of Chinese expansion, the Vietnamese became barriers to it, starting in 1978. The Vietnamese invaded Cambodia that year to oust Pol Pot and his murderous Khmer Rouge, who turned out to be fiercely anti-Vietnamese and devout followers of the ideology of Mao Tse-tung.
The Chinese cannot be held directly responsible for the genocide carried out by the Khmer Rouge. But there is little doubt that Pol Pot's Cambodia was an instrument of Chinese geopolitical influence in the region -- a brutal means to keep Vietnam in check. Although Cambodia was cut off to the world, Chinese aid flowed in and Chinese advisers moved freely throughout the country.
The Vietnamese invasion was partly self-defense, coming after months of attacks along its borders and a flood of Cambodian refugees into Vietnam. But it was also an attempt to assert Vietnamese control and block Chinese expansionism.
The Chinese clearly understood the import of the move to oust Pol Pot. They launched an attack on Vietnam only a few months later. The defeat of the Chinese army at the hands of the war-toughened Vietnamese stung Beijing. But China kept the Khmer Rouge alive for more than a decade, fueling a prolonged and costly insurgency that ended only with a United Nations-brokered peace and the formation of a coalition government Throughout that decade, Vietnam made undisguised attempts to open the door to its old foe, the United States. But the United States, for reasons of realpolitik, opted instead to align itself with the Chinese, effectively backing the Khmer Rouge in their struggle against Vietnam. [This is something others will remember.]

Now to the current conflict....These recently unearthed mass graves in Iraq in fact are related to decisions made by George Bush I which may seen by some inside Iraq as a betrayal that cost them as many as 100,000 lives.
The spontaneous Shiite uprising of 1991 consumed the southern part of Iraq right up to the approaches to Baghdad. Rebels came to U.S. troops, who were then deployed in the Euphrates Valley, begging for U.S. intervention. The Shiite political parties sent emissaries to the few Americans who would see them.
On Feb. 15, 1991, President George H.W. Bush called on the Iraqi military and people to overthrow Saddam Hussein. On March 3, an Iraqi tank commander returning from Kuwait fired a shell through one of the portraits of Hussein in Basra's main square, igniting the southern uprising. A week later, Kurdish rebels ended Hussein's control over much
But although Bush had called for the rebellion, his administration was caught unprepared when it happened. The administration knew little about those in the Iraqi opposition because, as a matter of policy, it refused to talk to them. Policymakers tended to see Iraq's main ethnic groups in caricature: The Shiites were feared as pro-Iranian and the Kurds as anti-Turkish. Indeed, the U.S. administration seemed to prefer the continuation of the Baath regime (albeit without Hussein) to the success of the rebellion. As one National Security Council official commented at the time: "Our policy is to get rid of Saddam, not Baathist rule."

George Bush I and Brent Scowcroft may in fact be proven right in the end not to dispatch troops into Iraq in 1991. The reason the Shiites have thus far not fought back against the Sunni insurgent attacks on their places of worship is because their leaders believe they can take power through the ballot box rather than with bullets. But if this newly elected government remains unable to exercise power in a meaningful way then they may resort to violence and Iraq could tumble into civil war which is the worst possible outcome for the Iraqis and for the United States.

Once of the problems with the power structure in Iraq is that power is veted in so many different groups and alliances in the National Assembly that nobody has the power to do anything nor is anybody held accountable when things go wrong or nothing gets done.

Posted by: Betzee | 24 April 2005

Developments in Iraq haven't been too positive of late -- though pronouncements from the U.S. military have, with forecasts for reduced U.S. troop levels, and confident appraisals of an insurgency weakened and on the run.

But as a new surge of violence rattles Baghdad and beyond, some in the military are expressing deep concern (not on the record, of course) that the mission may be in serious trouble.
"Senior military strategists, speaking privately, said they worry that insurgents are making inroads toward sparking a full-blown sectarian war and offered cautions about recent predictions that the United States could significantly reduce its forces from the current 142,000 within a year," reported the Boston Globe yesterday.
"'One of the insurgency's strengths is its capacity to regenerate," retired Army General John Keane, who returned recently from a fact-finding mission in Iraq, told the Globe. "We have killed thousands of them and detained even more, but they are still able to regenerate. They are still coming at us."
Keane, a Vietnam veteran and a member of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, took issue with recent suggestions by military commanders that the insurgency was waning because the number of attacks across the country had declined to about 50 a day, compared with more than 200 per day last year. And he used a word all but banished by supporters of Bush administration policy: "It's always dangerous to look at [the numbers of] enemy attacks," he said. "They can be very misleading, as much as the body counts in Vietnam. ... It can lead to wrong conclusions." (pasted in from salon.com).

I am not of the school that democracy is not suited to the Arab world and never bought into the "Asian values" nonsense. This is because I've done my share of travelling around the world and have never met anyone who didn't want accountable government. But democracies are hard to set up in places where power has only been exercised unilaterally and conditions in multi-ethnic Iraq could hardly been less auspicious to functioning democratic governance.

Posted by: Betzee | 25 April 2005