Iraq War Botched and Illegal
Apart from a few enthusiasts of the “surge,” most commentators now regard the Iraq war as a terrible mistake. With Democrats likely to take the White House next year, the focus seems to be shifting to the problem of extricating U.S. troops.
Can the war then be chalked up to a painful lesson learned?
On the contrary, after five years of war, it seems that no real lesson has been learned. Indeed, there’s a refusal to even acknowledge why it was wrong to invade Iraq.
Sure, there’s lots of criticism of the Bush administration for poor war planning, and for squandering U.S. lives and “treasure.”
All this is true, but it skirts a more fundamental problem - one that was barely mentioned in all the fifth-year anniversary commentaries last week - that the invasion was a war of aggression carried out in defiance of international law.
This is not a mere technicality. According to the Nuremberg Tribunal, set up by the Allies after World War II: “War is essentially an evil thing … To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime.”
The whole international legal system established after 1945 was dedicated to outlawing aggression, with the United Nations Security Council created to act as arbiter.
The Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq without the approval of the Security Council was therefore illegal, as then UN secretary general Kofi Annan has noted.
None of this seems to concern Senator Hillary Clinton, who stands a good chance of being the “anti-war” candidate in the U.S. presidential election.
Of course, Clinton voted in 2002 to authorize an invasion of Iraq. Still, in her tight race with Barack Obama, she’s tried to reposition herself as anti-war. She now argues for bringing (at least some) troops home - since, as she said last week, the U.S. has already done enough by giving Iraqis “their freedom.”
This is a stunning line of reasoning. Leaving aside the absurdity of suggesting that what Iraqis are experiencing is “freedom,” there is the troubling fact that she doesn’t seem to be aware - or care - that invading Iraq was contrary to international law.
This indifference to the war’s illegality is typical of mainstream political and academic commentators.
Michael Ignatieff, who was prominent among intellectuals supporting the war, failed to even mention the war’s illegality in his widely noted mea culpa in the New York Times Magazine last summer. Ignatieff, now deputy leader of Canada’s Liberal party, took himself to task in the Times article. “I let emotions carry me past the hard questions, like: Can Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites hold together in peace what Saddam Hussein held together by terror?”
A more basic “hard” question didn’t seem to occur to Ignatieff: What right does the United States have to invade other countries?
It seems the lesson learned is to plan better before invading.
As long as commentators confine themselves to this sort of war critique, the imperial assumption behind the war - that the U.S. has the right to invade countries - will remain unchallenged, making more war likely.
Indeed, some of the war’s key enablers - like Clinton and Ignatieff - may soon hold power. Clinton may well be in a position to give more people their “freedom.”
We in the West are vigilant about aggression in our enemies. Yet, after five years of horror in Iraq, we remain doggedly blind to Western aggression.
Linda McQuaig is a Toronto writer and journalist. Her column appears every other week. lmcquaig@sympatico.ca
© Copyright Toronto Star 1996-2008
Iggy’s shown himself to be book smart, but reality dim. Damn, have to edit that somehow to make it read more better…
It’s a damn shame that the incompetence of the occupation is damned more than the illegality of the invasion. Of course it’s not just the illegality that was wrong, it’s also the exposure of the limits of the power of the usa. Bush has shown that the unipolar world with the usa dominating everyone has never been anything other than a pipedream. Had he not used force, the usa could have ruled the world without firing a shot, of course they’d have had to use diplomacy, and that’s not glam.
Ignatieff is the snake in the Canadian grass. One of the advantages of having an academic run for office is that you can read his scholarship and find out exactly what you’re voting for. Iggy is pro-torture and pro-empire. Tony Judt calls him one of Bush’s “useful idiots.” It wouldn’t surprise me to hear that the idea of leaving his cushy chair at Harvard to run for Prime Minister of Canada did not originate with him but rather, Karl Rove. So long as Iggy hulks in Parliament like a vulture waiting for Stephan Dion to fail, I will never vote Liberal. Next time, I’m going Green.
Again, why did the Democratic electorate support two candidates who will continue the occupation if either one becomes president? The clear choice was the former candidate who stated that the invasion and subsequent occupation is a war crime. Can you guess who that was?
An Iraqi, interviewed on BBC radio last week, put it succinctly: “We have no security. Without security we have no freedom.”
Comparing Clinton to Iggy is low - accurate but low.
When Iggy ran for the Liberal leadership, he came across as a transplanted Republican because he had just come home after spending years in the States. But the longer Dion waits to bring down the government, the more opportunities Iggy has to get up in Parliament and present a gentler (ie more Canadian) version of himself for mass public consumption.
When Dion steps down as leader of the Liberal Party, I think it will be Iggy in a Thong rather than Bob Rae in digital swimming trunks - trying to fool us with his pseudo transparency.
RE: - Next time, I’m going Green.
Zoya, what is wrong with the NDP! The Canadian Greens are more Ron Paul than Nader!
RE: - Sure, there’s lots of criticism of the Bush administration for poor war planning, and for squandering U.S. lives and “treasure.”
Did anyone catch George talk about this on The Hour? Seems to me that Bush is more concerned with the squandering of “treasure” - that the destruction of a society and the mass lost of lives.
RE: - On the contrary, after five years of war, it seems that no real lesson has been learned. Indeed, there’s a refusal to even acknowledge why it was wrong to invade Iraq. / Leaving aside the absurdity of suggesting that what Iraqis are experiencing is “freedom,” there is the troubling fact that she doesn’t seem to be aware - or care - that invading Iraq was contrary to international law.
Seems that, not only is starting a war always wrong, but it is in and of itself a war crime. Yet, and McQuaig makes this point repeatedly, it is the one aspect that everyone seems to by shying away from.
Seems also that McQuaig doesn’t by either the view that the war was about “freedom” or the view that Iraqis are more free than they were under Saddam. McQuaig’s own views concerning the reason for war against Iraq can be summed up in the title of her book - “It’s the Crude Dude” - which is probably what she thinks Bush meant by the use of the word “treasure.”
RE: - A more basic “hard” question didn’t seem to occur to Ignatieff: What right does the United States have to invade other countries? / Indeed, some of the war’s key enablers - like Clinton and Ignatieff - may soon hold power.
Iggy and Clinton supporters - is it true that they figure that starting wars are Ok, but only if the war goes according to plan?
What is missing from this article is what exactly various people mean when they say that the war didn’t go according to plan. We need more details into exactly what these plans were.
Seems that the war went somewhat according to plan in some instances but not others. For example, in the case of Blackwater - it was supposed to be all profit and no scandal.
“War is essentially an evil thing … To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime.”
Premeditated to boot. Long before Bush usurped office.
The right thing to do now is to ‘lose’ the war, withdraw, and issue an apology to the Iraqi people, the world, and to our own citizens.
Unfortunately, this war is going according to plans for the architects of the war. It is a sucess. After all, billions of our tax dollars are going from the public trust to the pockets of Halliburton and other greed infested individuals.
Just like they are trying to ‘privatize’ our schools, social security, and military, it is only a function to get those pools of money that were originally meant to benefit the American people. Now you can count the people and corporations that it is going to benefit.
Meanwhile, the economy, health care, and food supply is crashing.
I don’t think that mainstream America has learned anything.
so it goes, and goes…
Intellectuals supporting the war? Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?
Most of us knew the was illegal and botched before the end of 2003. It’s good to see that the “slower people” are starting to catch up.
Hey Riverman, I’m PRO-CHOICE and proud of it.
Re:
Again, why did the Democratic electorate support two candidates who will continue the occupation if either one becomes president? The clear choice was the former candidate who stated that the invasion and subsequent occupation is a war crime. Can you guess who that was?
Of course, HDune — Dennis Kucinich.
Sadly, the American political process and corporate media made short work of his inspiring campaign.
The Lorax and riverman - the children have been kicked out of their homes (along with their parents)and, as the civil wars continue, these parents have to watch them slowly waste away from a lack of food or from drinking contaminated water. All these arms dealers and “contracting” firms keep making money the longer this conflict continues.
This was not the type of CHOICES these parents wished either for themselves or for their children.
ZOYA, I still want to know what is stopping you from voting NDP in the next election. Naomi Klein and Linda McQuaig vote NDP.
RE: - Intellectuals supporting the war? Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?
TheLorax, that is Iggy - “theoretically” everything works out as long as you don’t factor in the people. My favourite Iggy video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-GBBV1yv7hk
Lesser Evils by Michael Ignatieff
When democracies fight terrorism, they are defending the proposition that their political life should be free of violence. But defeating terror requires violence. It may also require coercion, secrecy, deception, even violation of rights. How can democracies resort to these means without destroying the values for which they stand? How can they resort to the lesser evil without succumbing to the greater?
Putting the problem this way is not popular. Civil libertarians don’t want to think about lesser evils. Security is as much a right as liberty, but civil libertarians haven’t wanted to ask which freedoms we might have to trade in order to keep secure. Some conservative thinkers, like those at the libertarian Cato Institute, come down the same way but for different reasons: for them, the greater evil is big government, and they oppose measures that give the executive branch more power. Other conservatives, like Attorney General John Ashcroft, simply refuse to believe that any step taken to defend the United States can be called an evil at all.
But thinking about lesser evils is unavoidable. Sticking too firmly to the rule of law simply allows terrorists too much leeway to exploit our freedoms. Abandoning the rule of law altogether betrays our most valued institutions. To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war. These are evils because each strays from national and international law and because they kill people or deprive them of freedom without due process. They can be justified only because they prevent the greater evil.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9507E6DA1F3AF931A35756C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
Plain and simple, this war is a crime against humanity, and those that waged it ought to be brought to justice as war criminals. To do otherwise sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations to do as they please, wage war whenever and wherever they like and wield unprecedented power such that they could, for all practical purposes, become a dictator and create a totalitarian society here in the good ol’ US of A.
To do otherwise, to sit silently by and do nothing, is to consent to the virtual overthrow of our country as we know it.
Israel wants this war and whatever Israel wants, Israel gets. When it comes to Israel, this is where liberal intellectual Jews lose it, become reactionary conservatives and say things like “Sticking too firmly to the rule of law simply allows terrorists too much leeway to exploit our freedoms”.
We are all paying for the Holocaust.
“SPAM by RIVERMAN”. Ignore his rants please, or he will totally disrupt this thread with his insanity.
RE: Israel wants this war and whatever Israel wants, Israel gets.
The arms dealers in Israel want war - they find it profitable. Some Jews in Israel are very rich and, as Naomi Klein pointed out, other Jews in Israel are very poor.
The rich arms dealers get richer and deflect criticism from themselves if they can get the poor to blame someone external.
Kem, medicated rants may be annoying to some, paid trolls to others, but let’s limit the use of the word “spam” to those selling penis enlargements, porn and Kraft Dinner.
On the other hand, war does make Bush and Blair feel - er - larger.
Anyone have an opinion concerning the rightfulness or wrongfulness of the war in Afghanistan?
As Bill Maher would say: “New Rule” - from now on, for every innocent killed by illegal aggression, an innocent from the aggressor nation must also be killed. Let’s call it the Even-Steven Law. You blow up a building in, say, Iraq - you gotta blow one in New York. A dozen innocents bombed during a wedding in Afghanistan - take out a wedding party in Topeka. Lob a few missiles into Somalia - lob a few missiles into Malibu.
Until we Americans feel the pain we inflict upon others, we will continue to enjoy our little God blesses only America cause We’re Number One so we can bomb anybody we want fantasy until, one day, the rest of the kids in the playground decide they’ve had enough of our killing and stealing and gang up and take us down.
Kem,
I wish there was a link to click that would let readers ignore CommonTaters like riverman. Can’t commondreams put that functionality in? I know I’ve seen it elsewhere…
If we ignore riverman long enough he will find himself up the creek without his prattle.
The truth is, we often get some really informative info from others because of the Rivermen. He is funny at first, then boring, then maddenng, but my mouse works quite well and sometimes I have fun responding to him. I play with my mouse a lot.
vaudree: good question about Afghanistan. Frontline “Bush’s War” is looking at a lot of that. A direct retaliation on the organization responsible for the attack on us could be justified (the original CIA campaign against al queda there.) Don’t know enough about Taliban/al queda relationship to figure if Taliban contol fo Afghanistan had any chance of survival once we went in. Now for the requisite conspiracy theorists.
Sure would like to have been a fly on the wall during Chaney’s energy meetings early in the 1st term.
It’s annoying the way commondreams keeps discovering these amazing new things over and over even after five years. The Iraq war is illegal? oh wow when did you notice? also illegal is the least of its crimes. what about a million dead Iraqis? Do they or their families care if they were killed legally? what difference would that make?
RE - Until we Americans feel the pain we inflict upon others, we will continue to enjoy our little God blesses only America cause We’re Number One so we can bomb anybody we want fantasy
How much more of that pain must you feel before Americans stop being offended if someone insinuates that they might even be number two? How much worst must this recession get?
RE - vaudree: good question about Afghanistan. Frontline “Bush’s War” is looking at a lot of that. A direct retaliation on the organization responsible for the attack on us could be justified (the original CIA campaign against al queda there.)
Vince Lawrence - I think I saw a video a few months ago by that name - it was just after it was on and someone showed me where I could watch it on line at PBS - is it one video or is it a series? I only saw the one video. I am sure you have already seen Lies that Led to War (archived at the Fifth Estate) but have you seen
Life and Death in Kandahar
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/lifeanddeathinkandahar/video.html
riverman, you may like to see it as well since you seem to like small children. Badly burned children we’ve seen before, but we haven’t seen the tearful grandfather hoping against hope that the little one pulls through. And I’m more interested in what Peter MacKay is up to - he’s actually in government.
RE - Meanwhile, the economy, health care, and food supply is crashing.
Some people make fortunes during recessions - the same people who never have to worry about medical care or going hungry.
Americans…both U.S. and Canadians, aren’t used to thinking. Half of them can’t read. .The other half are stuck in front of the “boob tube”, 8 to 10 hours per day.
Fine article, though I wonder why she didn’t include mention of Barack Obama; for even if he can’t be faulted for having voted for authorising the war on Iraq during fall 2002, his policy proposal on what to do if elected president isn’t significantly better or different from Billary’s.
Following is a very important article, and it is scary how fast and hard this war on Iran that John McGlynn describes may come and hit or strike, respectively. It’s not about military aggression, but as he well explains, the economic war on Iran will be destructive enough for Iran that USCENTCOM wouldn’t do much more damage.
“Day of Infamy: The March 20, 2008 US Declaration of War on Iran
by John McGlynn
Global Research, March 24, 2008
japanfocus.org ”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8429
That doesn’t have links in it, while the original copy does. It was linked in the homepage this morning, and is titled the same, minus ‘Day of Infamy:’.
This type of war on Iran will be even easier and far less costly (to the U.S.) than a military war on Iran would be, and will be nearly equally illegal and criminal.
Rivernut;
Dry up, you drunken illogical idiot. What the hell does abortion have to do with this thread?
ok so the riverman is annoying and somewhat a pain..but
FREEDOM OF SPEECH folks..
as much as i find his drivel annoying I find censorship even more so
I don’t read his crap , I just pass right by..
feed the troll it gets fat starve it it will go away
The mistake the Bush gang made was not controlling the Iraq people after the illegal invasion, this gave the impression the ” war ” was lost but of course it never was a war. I guarentee most of the insurgents are under the control of the occupying force and Al-Qaeda mostly a myth. Why would this be, well the idea was to kill and maim as many muslims as possible and steal their oil in the bargain, establish a presence and attack Iran from three sides. The selections will be put on hold when the next incident like 9/11 occurs and the country will be under martial law.
The problem the USA has with learning from the past is how far back the past goes that anyone remembers. This country’s long sordid history of criminal abuse of other nations goes way back but who remembers, no one. When reminded, they suddenly go deaf, don’t want to hear it. I believe most people in this country want to stay the course simply because they know of no other option. Pressing these people on the government’s obvious misdeeds produces various convulsive reactions. I feel like I am in the movie “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”.
VAUDREE: I especially liked your posts today, particularly the segment on “leseer evils.” From a spiritual perspective, since the problem of “evil” has always been with the human race, I prefer to look to what the ancient Chinese sages had to say in the I Ching.
Kua/hexagram 43 (ironic parallel with our 43rd president as he is the poster child for its lessons) examines this at length to suggest that evil can never be fought without those on the side of Truth taking up the same means as evil, itself. Instead of engaging in direct battle, the Zen-like approach (with parallels what a few said as per ignoring Riverman) is to not feed the beast, not counter it, not try to destroy it by any direct means; but rather to INVEST in all the alternatives to evil, which means war. Of course we know that to distill to things like strategic trade deals, diplomacy, sending cultural missions, etc.
The Frontline production “Bush’s War” was two part, each 2.5 hrs., rebroadcast here this week, originally I don’t know when. Most regulars here that have followed the verifiable real news and kept abreast of the pieces from people like Kay, the intelligence community, and serious analysts of the region, would have been familiar with the material.
It challenged some of my conclusions though. I’ve never accepted the incompetence theory, unless they truly believed this action would be a cakewalk and quick. The show left me with the impression though that they really did believe that it was all going to go swimmingly well. If that is really the case, then they are grossly, miserably, impeachably incompetent. Apparently they believed the rest of the world would eventually pragmatically join them in committing an illegal act. After all, they’d recruited the majority of the Congress, and flummoxed a powerless U.N. It would only be a matter of time before the world would accept the inevitability of PNAC policy.
In order to learn a lesson from America’s illegal invasion of Iraq, punishment must be meted out.
It’s basic Child Psychology (or Learning). If you want a child to change his behavior, you must provide negative reinforcement for the bad behavior, and then follow through so they know you mean it. If we don’t impeach these crooks and liars and then have them arrested by the int’l court, future administrations will see that there are no consequences for bad behavior.
I vote for Cheney, the puppet Bush, Rummy, Rice, Tenet(sp?) and Wolfowitz to be arrested and tried in international court. Powell was complicit by giving his “proof of wmds” speech before the UN Security Council all the while knowing it was bullshit (good soldier that he was.) We must take away their “toys” and give them a permanent timeout.
Colin Powell took one up the ass out of loyalty to his president (maybe he’s been punished enough.) He was this administration’s one shot at going after bin Laden, turning him in, getting the hell out of the Mideast, and restoring America’s good will around the world (at that point our reputation wouldn’t have needed restoring, the rest of the world was still with us back then.) Powell’s approval rating was higher than the president’s. Unfortunately he was playing with a bunch of children that were too busy playing “mine’s bigger than yours” to be effective at playing war.
As Powell aptly said before we invaded Iraq, “You break it, you buy it.” Unfortunately, he was right about that, and that’s why there will be no immediate, large scale draw down of troops in 2009. We will need to stay and help Iraq rebuild what we destroyed due to our immoral and illegal invasion.
Vince Lawrence, thanks! Think I only saw one part. Will look into it. Heard the latest about Khadr?
Crown argues against release of Khadr documents
Earlier Wednesday, defence lawyer Dennis Edney told CTV’s Canada AM that the information Canadian officials obtained is now being used against Khadr in Guantanamo.
“They violated so many of his rights and in the course of doing that they interrogated him off and on for days and then they provided that evidence and information to the Americans,” he said.
Edney said 99 per cent of the documents his team has received from the Canadian government have been blacked out.
“We say he’s entitled to that information because he needs to have a fair trial,” he said. “The process is already tainted enough over there and he’s entitled, as a Canadian citizen, to that disclosure.” …
He also claims that Canadian diplomats and intelligence officers who later questioned him at Guantanamo refused to help him.
Instead, he says in the affidavit, they questioned him about his father, Ahmed Said Khadr, who’s been accused of being a founding member and financier of al-Qaeda.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080326/khadr_SCC_080326/20080326?hub=Canada
RE: -
Khadr’s lawyers ask top court for interrogation transcripts
Canada ‘took advantage’ of Khadr at Guantanamo Bay, lawyer says
-
Lawyers of Omar Khadr were at the Supreme Court of Canada Wednesday trying to get access to confidential federal government documents they claim are vital to his defence — including transcripts of interrogations by Canadian officials.
His lawyers asked the top court to order Ottawa to hand over uncensored transcripts and videotapes of the interrogations of Khadr in 2003 at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. …
His lawyers say he’s entitled to the material because Canadian officials infringed the Charter of Rights when they interviewed him at Guantanamo Bay. They also hope the transcripts will provide evidence that Ottawa knew a Canadian citizen was being tortured and did nothing about it.
“We’re saying that Canada has an obligation to provide those documents, and that obligation arises because it went to Guantanamo Bay when it was well known that this is a place beyond the rule of law. It took advantage of Omar Khadr,” Edney said.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/03/26/khadr-lawyers.html
RE: - Al-Qaeda mostly a myth
Al-Qaeda is not a single entity but a few small loosely linked groups of like-minded individuals.
RE: - VAUDREE: I especially liked your posts today, particularly the segment on “leseer evils.” From a spiritual perspective, since the problem of “evil” has always been with the human race, I prefer to look to what the ancient Chinese sages had to say in the I Ching.
That is Iggy who said that stuff and he has the best chance of replacing Harper. I don’t take the threat of external terrorism all that seriously myself. Of course there are always going to be threats and have always been threats - but the only thing that changed is that the internet brings like-minded people together for better or worse.
The internet has brought together people who like the same hockey team or the same athelete or actor - but also pedophiles. Pedophiles fit my definition of terrorist even better than Al-Qaeda does - and I hope that we haven’t taken people off those cases to chase down people of Middle Eastern descent how went to a gas station owned by a brother of a cousin of a spouse of a friend of a terrorist.
Siouxrose, remind me to find Bill Blaikie’s stuff about the evils of corporatism.
got some of the cbc and ctv content mixed up.
Both say that the documents from the Canadian government on Khadr’s case were pretty much completely blacked out. Only the CBC says that when the Canadian diplomats came to see Omar Khadr, they were not there to help him (video says he even told them he was tortured and they ignored it), but to question him further.
Seems that when you go to bed with slime …
If a thousand people also write, it will have an impact. Ignore the neasayers:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8340
Clinton may well be in a position to give more people their “freedom.”
- That’s a scary thought indeed. I sometimes wonder if all the disinformation campaign against Hugo Chavez may be for laying the ground for the future ‘liberation’ of the Venezuelan people. It’s disappointing that both Hillary Clinton and Obama seemed to support, or at least to not condemn, the recent incursion by Colombian army into Ecuador. Being Democrats, perhaps they don’t want to be seen as ’soft’ or too radically different from the current administration and alienate center-right voters?
Since some of the comments have referred to Dennis Kucinich, I think democracies get the kind of governments they deserve. The mainstream media essentially blacked out candidates like Kucinich and Ron Paul. I find it hard to accept that the majority of voters have found only these three candidates to be the best?! I think most people were just plain lazy to do their homework or to hear everyone out. Any changes post-2008 could be only in degree, and may be nothing fundamental will change? Or, may be these candidates really do plan on fundamental changes, but are not just talking about them now?