Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiTop Ten Myths about Iraq, 2008
1. Iraqis are safer because of Bush's War. In fact, conditions of insecurity have helped created both an internal and external refugee problem:
' At least 4.2 million Iraqis were displaced. These included 2.2 million who were displaced within Iraq and some 2 million refugees, mostly in Syria (around 1.4 million) and Jordan (around half a million). In the last months of the year both these neighbouring states, struggling to meet the health, education and other needs of the Iraqi refugees already present, introduced visa requirements that impeded the entry of Iraqis seeking refuge. Within Iraq, most governorates barred entry to Iraqis fleeing sectarian violence elsewhere.'
2. Large numbers of Iraqis in exile abroad have returned. In fact, no great number have returned, and more Iraqis may still be leaving to Syria than returning.
3. Iraqis are materially better off because of Bush's war. In fact, A million Iraqis are "food insecure" and another 6 million need UN food rations to survive. Oxfam estimated in summer, 2007, that 28% of Iraqi children are malnourished.
4. The Bush administration scored a major victory with its Status of Forces Agreement. In fact, The Iraqis forced on Bush an agreement that the US would withdraw combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, 2009,and would completely withdraw from the Country by the end of 2011. The Bush administration had wanted 58 long-term bases, and the authority to arrest Iraqis at will and to launch military operations unilaterally.
5. Minorities in Iraq are safer since Bush's invasion. In fact, there have in 2008 been significant attacks on and displacement of Iraqi Christians from Mosul. In early January of 2008, guerrillas bombed churches in Mosul, wounding a number of persons. More recently, some 13,000 Christians have had to flee Mosul because of violence.
6. The sole explanation for the fall in the monthly death rate for Iraqi civilians was the troop excalation or surge of 30,000 extra US troops in 2007. In fact, troop levels had been that high before without major effect. The US military did good counter-insurgency in 2007. The major reason for the fall in the death toll, however, was that the Shiites won the war for Baghdad, ethnically cleansing hundreds of thousands of Sunnis from the capital, and turning it into a city with a Shiite majority of 75 to 80 percent. (When Bush invaded, Baghdad was about 50/50 Sunni and Shiite). The high death tolls in 2006 and 2007 were a by-product of this massive ethnic cleansing campaign. Now, a Shiite militiaman in Baghdad would have to drive for a while to find a Sunni Arab to kill.
7. John McCain alleged that if the US left Iraq, it would be promptly taken over by al-Qaeda. In fact, there are few followers of Usamah Bin Laden in Iraq. The fundamentalist extremists, if that is what McCain meant, are not supported by most Sunni Arabs. They are supported by no Shiites (60% of Iraq) or Kurds (20% of Iraq), and are hated by Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Jordan, who would never allow such a takeover.
8. The Iraq War made the world safer from terrorism. In fact, Iraq has become a major training ground for extremists and is implicated in the major bombings in Madrid, London, and Glasgow.
9. Bush went to war in Iraq because he was given bad intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction capabilities. In fact, the State Department's Intelligence & Research (I & R) division cast doubt on the alarmist WMD stories that Bush/Cheney put about. The CIA refused to sign off on the inclusion of the Niger uranium lie in the State of the Union address, which made Bush source it to the British MI6 instead. The Downing Street Memo revealed that Bush fixed the intelligence around the policy. Bush sought to get up a provocation such as a false flag attack on UN planes so as to blame it on Iraq. And UN weapons inspectors in Feb.-Mar. of 2003 examined 100 of 600 suspected weapons sites and found nothing; Bush's response was to pull them out and go to war.
10. Douglas Feith and other Neoconservatives didn't really want a war with Iraq (!). Yeah, that was why they demanded war on Iraq with their 1996 white paper for Bibi Netanyahu and again in their 1998 Project for a New American Century letter to Clinton, where they explicitly called for military action. The Neoconservatives are notorious liars and by the time they get through with rewriting history, they will be a combination of Gandhi and Mother Teresa and the Iraq War will be Bill Clinton's fault. The only thing is, I think people are wise to them by now. Being a liar can actually get you somewhere. Being a notorious liar is a disadvantage if what you want to is get people to listen to you and act on your advice. I say, Never Again.
See also my article in The Nation, "Iraq: The Necessary Withdrawal," and this piece in the Toronto Star.
50 Comments so far
Show AllThomas-Thanks. I will. Yes, he did see combat. He rarely talks about it though and never in detail. When he's been asked (not by me) he usually just says "if they shot me I shot back" and leaves it at that. Most soldiers say the same thing which is why I never pry in that regard. I hate when people ask soldiers "Didja kill anybody?" Like they're gonna talk or brag about it, But I digress...
The stories he has told me have usually been humorous ones involving the wild characters he served with, street kids like him or farmboys from way out. There was one guy he said was picked up and was so poor had no shoes on his feet. He was so rural, there was no record of him being born. But he wanted to serve because all of his brothers did and he felt he had nowhere else to go with his life.
Take care Thom, and again Thank You. :)
I was sure he had. When folks start telling you war stories about killing and all these things they saw done, you can almost be sure they never were closer to combat than Bush.
I have told a little bit about a few things when commenting here and I've never even told my wife even that.
It was quite a collection that served!
Happy New Year!!
Mister Cole missed the biggest lie of all. As David Michael Green has noted (to paraphrase), what planet do you have to be from to believe Bush Junior when he says that "Saddam never let the inspectors in" -- that's why the U.S. had to invade? Bush has said this recently, and repeatedly.
If there's a more blatant lie, I'd like to hear it!
Supporting the troops means that you just want them to come back home safe and sound. It also means that you support them when they come home so that they don't fall through the cracks like so many veterans do. They're cannon fodder for the elites. They're the ones who don't support the troops, treating them like machinery. When that machinery breaks down or gets old, they let them rust somewhere.
Supporting the troops doesn't mean that you believe in the wars they fight in. Being anti-war doesn't mean that you want our troops to die or become destitute. Regardless of why they enlist, be it money, adventure, or something altruistic, you have to keep in mind that they are victims of the military/industrial complex also. We have a society where the easiest, law-abiding way for someone to get a leg up in the world is to become a soldier. They bribe our young men and women into mounting up for combat.
I've been approached for recruitment also, even as far back as 10th grade. I used to hang up on the recruiters. They wave $25,000 bonuses and GI Bills in your face. Join the National Guard and you get an extra check every month. Tax free!
There's also the notion of young people wanting to "be somebody." Where is a kid in small-town America to turn when there are no jobs for him/her? Maybe their grades were less than stellar in high school, so there are no scholarships for them. Family farms are becoming extinct. They're just joining a big gang.
My father is also a veteran. He was drafted into the Vietnam conflict shortly after he dropped out of high school. He never fell through the cracks but knew many who did, the horrors they witnessed and may have even participated in scarring their psyches. Not everyone is strong enough to cope with things like that.
Dad was called a "baby-killer" too by some people. He remembers eggs being thrown at his bus.
Not everyone could flee to Canada. Not everyone had an escape valve due to their social status or whatever.
I can't tell you how many homeless people I've had approach me and tell me that they served in Vietnam.
If you don't support the troops, you support societal decay.
What you said. And much appreciated.
And I'll bet your Dad held no ill will for the kids that did go to Canada either.
Thanks Thomas. I think William A. Collins' piece came right after my post.
To be honest for a while he did hold some animosity towards the people who got out of serving in Vietnam even though he didn't know any of the people who fled to Canada personally. On his part it was mainly a class/status thing. He saw rich kids working at the PX while he had to fight or had a doctor make up a medical reason for them to stay home. It's wasn't a pro-war thing with him. He just had the attitude that "Well WE had to go and the rich kids got out of it." But he's gotten past that as well as his animosity towards Jane Fonda. It's something he's come to terms with over the years. My father's a staunch Democrat (which makes for lively debates since I'm a Naderite.), and is a huge fan of the Clintons. I think when it came out that Bill Clinton didn't go to 'Nam, it changed his attitude about draft dodging, so much so that I've gotten his blessing to "take off the the Great White North" if there were to be a draft.
So he did at one time resent the draft dodgers but not anymore. It's funny because they say people become more conservative as they get older, and that the ones who don't are insane. Well Dad must be insane, 'cause he has shocked me in recent years with how progressive he's become. :)
I've always been liberal, now, at 65 I'm almost an anarchist.
I would have been willing top bet your Dad saw combat from what you said. Its usually easy to tell.
I felt the same way about rich kids buying their way out, but I never felt hostile to a guy that took off to Canada if he was drafted. Most of us didn't.
Unlike him I can never forgive traitors that gave aid and comfort to the enemy while they were killing my men. I'll never forgive Fonda and Hayden. But I understand I think why your Dad can. He's a better man than I am.
"so much so that I've gotten his blessing to "take off the the Great White North" if there were to be a draft."
I'd give you the same advice, hand you the plane fare and drive you to the airport.
Seeing war will make you fairly liberal in a hurry I think. Give your Dad my respects.
"I'll never forgive Fonda or Hayden."
?????
I'm at a real loss as to the precise cause of this animosity you feel towards them and, by inclusion, those of us who protested America's imperial adventures in the former IndoChina.
If it's strictly a matter of "Well, I had to don a uniform and assist in the slaughter of countless innocent people -- as well as the armed nationalists/patriots who resisted America's said intervention and consequent slaughter, just as they and their parents and grandparents etc. fought the French who preceded us and the Japanese who preceded them and the French who preceded them and the Chinese who preceded them" -- I would then wonder if you would join hands with those who condemn and would imprison say, IDF soldiers who desert because of their moral repulsion to what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, or with people who may not have been members of the Nationalist Socialist Party in Germany circa 1941 and may also have been opposed to Germany's absorption of Czechoslovakia, Poland, the Netherlands, Austria, Belgium, Hungary, Romania, etc. but, with their country at war, "supported the troops" (including the SS) and applauded the execution of the Valkyrie plotters?
If what my country asks me to do is wrong, then whatever acts I perform in completing that mission is also wrong. This country's recent de-evolution to a robotic, knee-jerk worship of all things military is quite frightening, as is the embrace of those who willingly put on uniforms and perform the dirty work required by those who are addicted to money and power.
In the '60s there were many (not enough) instances of blockades at induction centers, including attempts at diverting buses full of new inductees, and I'm sure some eggs may have been thrown at these buses. But just as Bush et.al. are attempting to revise history on their way out of the country's official power structures, there was a similar attempt (apparently successful) back then to turn the anti-war protests into attacks on individual soldiers. These reports have all been exposed for the bullshit that they were (there are no cases documented by any respectable media outlets at the time of returning soldiers being attacked or spit upon at airports or denied flight attendant service on commercial flights home. Just Limbaugh- and O'Reilly- and Hannity-type myths made up on the spur of the moment to underscore some point being made.)
So, Thomas, since I normally like reading your commentaries (even when I may disagree) and have always found your footing to be intelligently and honestly planted, I was a bit taken back by those words and would appreciate some elaboration.
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
"I'm at a real loss as to the precise cause of this animosity you feel towards them and, by inclusion, those of us who protested America's imperial adventures in the former IndoChina."
It will be simple to answer you.
First...
There is no inclusion of any that opposed the war in Viet Nam, I wasn't too happy about it myself. Many of us that came back expressed our opposition in various ways.
"These reports have all been exposed for the bullshit that they were (there are no cases documented by any respectable media outlets at the time of returning soldiers being attacked or spit upon at airports or denied flight attendant service on commercial flights home."
That is absolute bullshit. I witnessed two of these instances myself. And if it weren't for Marine Corp discipline which held my three back on the second, you would have read about it. I never saw any flight attendent do anything but be helpful, especially to the wounded. So take my word for it or not, there were cowards among you back then that spit on my men and called them "baby killers"
I'd certainly say there is no knee-jerk worship of all things military, if there is I've missed it. You ought to hear some of the things returning Marines say. And I sure don't see it day to day.
As to Fonda and Hayden, if they stayed in the US and protested I would have had no problem with them. They traveled to Viet Nam, actively lent their names to support the enemy that was killing their countrymen. I lost my Master sergeant the day Jane was by that anti aircraft gun. They and any like then disgust me. They are active traitors to their country and acted against their country and our troops that were serving. I personally wouldn't waste my spit on them.
"I'll never forgive Fonda and Hayden."
Totally in agreement.
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
Thanks!!
I don't think anyone but rabid right wingers believe any of these 10 myths anymore in any case.
I doubt anyone believes this President anymore except hard core ideologues.
The break in functionality on the human energy economy scale comes in the title to Cole's piece "...Ten Myths...". Though common usage labels myth a lie the fact remains that every human social order has, as a function of it's nervous system created a myth, story, religion, etc. (religio: a linking back). The number one myth we function with (dysfunction with) as a collective in the US is American Exceptionalism (AE). All the lies here are theories (true or false) arising out of the use of AE as part of our methodology.
Cole peeks through AE slightly because his professional methodology entails a direct human story based on human experiences on the ground, where as AE doesn't recognize the humanity behind the "Big Picture" scenario which includes and pivots around an enemy image of inherent evil. Cole falls back into AE with his statements about the invasion of Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam - these are lies of denial that continue to mask the facts of fear of scarcity, fear of lack of recognition, and lack of recognizing both universal abundance (see Bose/Einstein condensate) and human potentials, that led to our use brute force.
Denials serve to give the denier time and space to develop new emotive behaviors. Perhaps the top denial (other than we organize ourselves with myth, etc.) of facts to overcome in the moment is the lie that it is Bush's war. When collectively it is our blood and our treasure being spent on the circumstances of the Middle/Near/Far East, how can it be just Bush's war? Calling it Bush's war allows the denier time and space to figure out how to overcome complicity in war because of both impotency/frigidity to halt the momentum of fascism, and to face the reasonability of humanly recognizing the current lack of ability, while finding a way to act within a realm of non-recognized ability (examples given mine).
If we, as a collective, can recognize ourselves and our enemies on a human level, which is tricky as this entails continuous egotistical makeovers, we can, not do away with war but, transform our behavior of war: instead of having enemy image that entails an inherence of evil, the enemy image will have the common ground of the shared qualities of human needs and feelings. And our wars will move in the direction that Joseph Campbell (the source for 'religio-" above) gives a historical accounting of in regard to either the Iroquois or Algonquin populations came up with, similar to the process that certain factions of the Hip Hop community devised as a means of viability, to hold similar activities such as poetry slams to reconcile human conflict and lack of humane human recognition.
Myths are myths, lies are lies, facts are facts...let's hone a clear myth and thus clear human methodology, we will then be more empowered to present the facts in a clear fashion, and then be of assistance in bringing about globalization in a viable humane ordering.
The article provides some useful reminders, but mostly nothing new, most, if not all of it, being old information by now. Cole seems a little excited, say, in publishing this article, and wherein he speaks of the 'Neocons' in item or bullet point no. 10, he almost seems to be saying that the U.S. waged this war of aggression, against peace, and so on, on Iraq for the sake of pleasing psychopath Ben. Netanyah-ooie; that diabolically insane s.o.b. I doubt that that's why the U.S. waged this war; there must certainly be far more involved than only the psychopathically insane zionists who claim to be truly Jewish (when they clearly are nothing of the sort, not religiously anyway). And just because the U.S. govt serves as big protector, etc., for the psychpathic, murderous, genocidally insane, ... leadership of Israel, this does not mean that the U.S. does this because of being controlled, to any degree, by those psychopaths; when, in reality, this could only be apparences in the sense of the U.S. and its ruling elites being the people in real control, including of the Israeli ledership, which, if it steps on the wrong toes the wrong way will find out very firmly that crossing the line the wrong way is a thing to definitely avoid doing and ever repeating again.
PNAC and the 'crazy' "Neocons" can be really serving as front-stage goons to provide cover for the real ruling elites, who don't conduct themselves in blatantly psychopathic manners in plain view of the public. The real-most ruling elites of the U.S. govt might have preferred that 'full spectrum dominance' be attempted a little differently, but they're certainly for FSD, having really nothing against it, have been working on achieving this since WWII, if not even earlier, and so on. Every presidential administration along the way "plays" its "part(s)".
In any case, Cole seems a little too "excited" with this piece of his; I believe.
5. Minorities in Iraq are safer since Bush's invasion.
Love this one! Having just spent several hours this holiday week with my Dad in his Buick, NPR became the one station that was some sort of half-way point of our radio preferences.
NPR ran the "Christians In Iraq Celebrating Christmas - Isn't It Wonderful How We Liberated This Minority" story on the hour for a couple of days. I kept my mouth shut - peace in Dad's Buick was a much higher priority.
Thanks for the article Juan Cole and CD.
It may not be a war Obama started but her has to end it, like 15 minutes ago and not continue wars in places like Afghanistan or start new ones with Iran and Pakistan.
Have fun with this:
http://www.aksalser.com/game.htm
Great game! I Sent the link to all my family - particularly the right wing ones...
---USAn---
Paul Siemering
Thanks Juan. You are one indispensable dude.
What Juan Cole certainly gets right is that it was "Bush's war" NOT the Democrat's war and definitely not Obama's war.
As he points out in his piece on the Nation,
"Obama bears no responsibility for these policies, but as president he inherits the responsibility to do everything he can to allow Iraq to go forward without further calamities and to repair, through reparations or aid, as much of the damage as possible."
I'm also glad he has endorsed an orderly withdrawal by 2011 as opposed to the incredibly irresponsible position of "out now" which Cole has rightly opposed for the past 5 years. We've been there 5 years, I think we can spare another 2 to ensure an orderly withdrawal. We owe it to the people of Iraq. Who, as he points out in his article in the Nation, don't just want an orderly withdrawal, they demand it.
Prof. Cole understands that if we had fought this war the right way it would have "been worth the sacrifices on all sides". But, of course, Bush destroyed any hope of making this a war of liberation. And when Cole shifted his position and began opposing the war, I thought it was very honorable of him to point the blame in the proper direction. For example, though he now opposes the war (and has for most of the occupation) he still supports the troops, he still supports the Democrats, and he still supports Obama. Because he knows they are not to blame for this - Bush and the Republicans deserve the blame.
" ... he still supports the troops ... "
I don't know what I'm missing, but I've never been able to fathom how "supporting the troops" is not supporting the war and occupation. "The troops" kill innocent people daily. Collateral damage you understand. The fog of war. The only way to support the troops is to bring them all home and out of harm's way where they were stationed for no good reason.
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
"I've never been able to fathom how "supporting the troops" is not supporting the war and occupation."
Perhaps if you seperated the war from the men and women that must fight it you'd have an easier time.
Our soldiers serve at the pleasure of the US and the President of the United States. No matter all the sophisticated blather, they have no choice. (even if they were drafted they must serve) It is not now and never has been the perogative of soldiers to decide national policy in a Democracy. If you do, you risk the Roman example or dictators around the planet that hold power based on the military.
It would be simple if we could pick our duties and obligations, but we can't. Unless its a society of every man for himself, which we do not live in thankfully.
Consider you are a soldier, you don't agree with the war, you think the President that sent you there is a dog, you actually like the people of the country you are in.....but, you are not a coward, you are not a deserter, you can't really claim C.O. status, you certainly won't desert the men you serve with and let someone else take your place....what do you do...you serve and hope someone gets some sanity ASAP.
Is this the kind of person that deserves castigation, deserves your wish for their death, deserves contempt when they come home or while they are serving, wish ill will and contempt on their families while they serve?
Do you really want to be associated with people that go to a soldiers burial and carry signs saying he was a warmonger, child killer, etc?
I have no trouble supporting the boys and girls that have to go and at the same time detesting the cowards that sent them there.
I ask that you reconsider your position and have a bit more sympathy for the kids that are actually paying the price for our failure and cowards decisions.
You should consult the Nuremberg Tribunals, the Geneva Conventions, and The Uniform Code Military Justice, which after the Nuremberg tribunals included the restriction against obeying illegal orders. And no; Soldiers,Sailors,Marines, Airmen, and Coast Guard do not serve at the 'pleasure' of the President; in fact they take an oath to "protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic". The Constitution clearly states that "all treaties are supreme law' and the Geneva Conventions are TREATIES---which prohibit wars of aggression. These "preemptive wars" are illegal wars of aggression. Indeed they serve their oath and not an elected official. Everyone serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are in violatoin of the Geneva Conventions and their oath, and their is no exception to that.
On a personal level I would support those who choose not to go, but serve their respective sentences in Stockade or Brigg after conviction for disobeying illegal orders. That would represent the kind of integrity as well as courage I identify with. The sentences being subject to reversal after appeal, it is a better bet than participating in illegal activity, or associating yourself with a criminal society like so much of the US society is.
One small example of that would be that fact that VP Cheney is still allowed his liberty after admitting publicly of war crimes. If he were a member of a high command of another nation, even one that were an Allie of the US, the same criminal populace that allows his liberty now, would scream for the denial of that liberty of another. The US is in a major conflict presently because there are millions that thrive on duplicity, hypocrisy, and what can only be considered an arrogant self imagery.
As for the homeless veterans, that is yet one more failure of the same criminal society. The one that is participating---like you----with the tired old illogical argument of "support the troops but not the war". Without the troops, Bush and Cheney, and Rove etc would have been forced to invade themselves; and it never would have happened. The argument that soldiers do not have the right to pick the wars they serve in , even if the are drafted is of the same validity as the Jesus myth, or that 'God' not only exists, but supports the USA. The sooner more people take your argument and study it with intelligence and factual information---the sooner the USA will have a chance to survive---much more than a few more years ---at best. As for the "Romans"; Roman soldiers were constantly feared by the Senate for the fact that they considered themselves "Soldiers first, Romans second". They never served with blind loyalty, and any General or Staff officer that forgot that was most often left to rot where ever he fell. His soldiers would not even give him the tribute of a Roman Cremation.
My hope is that someday, my people will ride our horses through your empty cities, and tell our children stories, usually at night around a nice fire, of the Americans; the FOOLS that had everything but pissed it all away with their arrogance, and ignorance , and greed---an oh yea 'God'.
Hey, I can dream can't I?
Good Luck America you really need it.
"And no; Soldiers,Sailors,Marines, Airmen, and Coast Guard do not serve at the 'pleasure' of the President; in fact they take an oath to "protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic"."
You are correct in the oath we took. But you shopuld also be aware thast ther President is commander in chief and decides your length of service, where and how you serve...so yes it is at the pleasure of the President.
"On a personal level I would support those who choose not to go, but serve their respective sentences in Stockade or Brigg after conviction for disobeying illegal orders. That would represent the kind of integrity as well as courage I identify with."
On a personal level so can I. They weren't disobeying illegal orders at any time. But if they refuse orders and stand their ground, they have my respect. Integrity of belief, not integrity. Those that serve have as much or more integrity as any of these folks.
"The argument that soldiers do not have the right to pick the wars they serve in , even if the are drafted is of the same validity as the Jesus myth, or that 'God' not only exists, but supports the USA."
You are certainly welcome to your atheistic or agnostic beliefs, but doesn't make them valid for one moment.
You are correct about the Romans. The moment they started to pick and choose, Rome was doomed. They ceased to be a Republic and became a dictatorship up for sale to the highest bidder.
Unfortunately, most of your people don't even know how to ride a horse anymore and left alone in the wilderness, would starve. Besides, shouldn't you make reparations to your slaves before anything else?(edit, I meant to put an LOL here without which, the humor might be a tad lost)
Things are rarely black or white. I'd suggest there are more than one version of what happened when and what was done to whom by who? Is that good English?
In the end you either honor our troops service, welcome them home, see that they are not forgotten or dishonored or you don't. As a vet, I think you do support our troops, not in the Rights meaning, but because you know what its like and how they feel.
Semper Fi brother.
"Perhaps if you seperated the war from the men and women that must fight it you'd have an easier time."
And how does one separate the soldier from the war. If there were no soldiers there could be no wars.
"Is this the kind of person that deserves castigation, deserves your wish for their death, deserves contempt when they come home or while they are serving, wish ill will and contempt on their families while they serve?"
And, please do not accuse me of something I never said. I said we should support them by bringing them home. I did not mention "wish for their death", I did not castigate them, I did not say they were deserving of contempt, and I did not wish them or their families ill will.
"Do you really want to be associated with people that go to a soldiers burial and carry signs saying he was a warmonger, child killer, etc?"
Again, I stated nothing of that sort.
Perhaps you have fallen victim to a psychological condition known as "projection".
-- EKATON --
EKATON
I hope you don't really believe that hokey BS about "no soldiers, no wars" You better check your history. There have been many wars without soldiers.
I am trying to point out to you that a soldier serves and cannot decide where and when he or she will serve.
You either support those that serve or you do not. There is no cozy in between on this one.
The only thing I've fallen victim to is seeing people call Hayden and Fonda "hero's", perhaps my own experiences in coming home color my feelings about this. So I'm not familiar with projection, If thats what this is...OK.
edit...I looked up "projection" and you can bet your ass I'm not projecting. That was pretty insulting. Especially since I had to look it up to find out you had hurled a deadly insult at me.
"edit...I looked up "projection" and you can bet your ass I'm not projecting. That was pretty insulting. Especially since I had to look it up to find out you had hurled a deadly insult at me."
Were you as offended as I was when you attempted to distort my comments by implying that I might be guilty of the following?
"Is this the kind of person that deserves castigation, deserves your wish for their death, deserves contempt when they come home or while they are serving, wish ill will and contempt on their families while they serve?"
"Do you really want to be associated with people that go to a soldiers burial and carry signs saying he was a warmonger, child killer, etc?"
Henry Kissinger said that the soldier is just a dumb stupid animal to be used as tools in foreign policy. I don't believe you would agree with a statement like that and I will not imply that you do, although that case could be made from some of your commentary.
RE: "Our soldiers serve at the pleasure of the US and the President of the United States. No matter all the sophisticated blather, they have no choice."
Actually they are required to disobey illegal orders. I believe that the invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal, compliant with illegal orders issued by the commander-in-chief. The generals were required to refuse these illegal orders but rather complied. Bad precedents were set by Korea and Vietnam wherein wars were conducted absent the requirement of Congress constitutionally mandated declaration of war. In the case of Iraq, the congress issued an "Authorization to Use Military Force." This is not a declaration of war and was a spineless way of avoiding its constitutionally mandated duty.
These wars and occupations are simply wrong and illegal and the soldiers are following illegal orders.
Again, I say, support the troops by bringing them home. I wish them no ill will whatsoever. On the contrary. They have been duped. It needs to stop.
See below, or above, depending on how you've configured your comments:
______________________________________________
thegreatrockyhill December 27th, 2008 2:12 pm:
Supporting the troops means that you just want them to come back home safe and sound. It also means that you support them when they come home so that they don't fall through the cracks like so many veterans do. They're cannon fodder for the elites. They're the ones who don't support the troops, treating them like machinery. When that machinery breaks down or gets old, they let them rust somewhere.
Supporting the troops doesn't mean that you believe in the wars they fight in. Being anti-war doesn't mean that you want our troops to die or become destitute. Regardless of why they enlist, be it money, adventure, or something altruistic, you have to keep in mind that they are victims of the military/industrial complex also. We have a society where the easiest, law-abiding way for someone to get a leg up in the world is to become a soldier. They bribe our young men and women into mounting up for combat.
______________________________________________
I am in full agreement with those comments.
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
"Were you as offended as I was when you attempted to distort my comments by implying that I might be guilty of the following?"
Thats fair and my apologies.
"These wars and occupations are simply wrong and illegal and the soldiers are following illegal orders"
I know thats an opinion held by some, but it simply doesn't hold water. But is it even worth talking about now, I doubt it. Was it illegal? To me, no they followed our law. Was it stupid, wrong and hurtful, you bet. So the only real disagreement is if the war and occupation were legal or not. I'm satisfied I'm right and I assune you are too. So we need not touch that subject again.
"I am in full agreement with those comments.by the thegreatrockyhill"
If that is so...we agree. But you deserve a further apology, and here it is.
So, lets bring them home and everbody will be happy, especially those kids that are there and the people of the countries they are in.
Happy New Year.
And I apologize to you. I get too emotional in some of these discussions and step over the edge. I believe you are a good and fair minded person.
Happy New Year right back at you.
-- doug shaw
"I get too emotional in some of these discussions and step over the edge. I believe you are a good and fair minded person."
I'll say the same, but you need not apologize to me, my bad here.
"Juan Cole certainly gets right is that it was "Bush's war" NOT the Democrat's war and definitely not Obama's war."
Maybe not so much Obama's; but Hillary Clinton, who voted for the AUMF without reading the briefing? and all the others who followed along...
There were a few - eg, Patty Murray - but most went along, and went along in prolonging the continuation.
"Prof. Cole understands that if we had fought this war the right way it would have "been worth the sacrifices on all sides"
What is this! There is never - never - a "right way" to fight a war...
More than a million deaths among the civilian population, in addition to the deaths and grievous mental and physical wounds of thousands of soldiers and the destruction of many of their families [and their subsequent abandonment to wholly inadequate treatment and support] ... not to mention the destruction of Iraqi homes, farms, cities, antiquities...
Worth it? In what gruesome calculus do we arrive at this?
Cole has often posted really helpful information; his are things I usually read and learn from.
But this is profoundly logically - and morally - wrong.
"What is this! There is never - never - a "right way" to fight a war..."
What about the Civil War? Should we have allowed slavery?
Or WWII? Would you have allowed Germany to go on slaughtering the Jews?
What I was referring to was Prof. Juan Cole's statements he made on Informed Comment on March 19, 2003. Here's the actual quote,
"My mind and heart are, like those of so many Americans, focused on the Gulf and Iraq tonight. I am thinking about all those brave young men and women in the US and British armed forces whose lives are on the line, and send them my warm support. And I am thinking about all the innocent Iraqis in the line of fire, who fear what awaits them. I remain convinced that, for all the concerns one might have about the aftermath, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices that are about to be made on all sides." - Juan Cole.
Also, since you mentioned "there is never - never - a "right way" to fight a war..." Then I suppose you also disagree with Prof. Cole that Afghanistan was "the right war at the right time".
Joehope [JH]
Fusion response [FN]:
[JH] What about the Civil War? Should we have allowed slavery?
Or WWII? Would you have allowed Germany to go on slaughtering the Jews?
What I [JH] was referring to was Prof. Juan Cole's statements he made on Informed Comment on March 19, 2003. Here's the actual quote,
"My mind and heart are, like those of so many Americans, focused on the Gulf and Iraq tonight. I am thinking about all those brave young men and women in the US and British armed forces whose lives are on the line, and send them my warm support. And I am thinking about all the innocent Iraqis in the line of fire, who fear what awaits them. I remain convinced that, for all the concerns one might have about the aftermath, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices that are about to be made on all sides." - Juan Cole.
Also, since you mentioned "there is never - never - a "right way" to fight a war..." Then I suppose you also disagree with Prof. Cole that Afghanistan was "the right war at the right time...”
1. [JH] What about the Civil War? Should we have allowed slavery?
[FN] The Civil War was not begun over slavery, but over a threat to the Union.
“...At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War,...exceed the nation's loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam....
And this doesn’t even mention the privation and death visited upon civilians during the war and afterwards during the occupation of the South...[My grandfather saw it first hand in Tennessee and left a record of it; it was a very bad time for them...]
No, we should not have allowed slavery. But emancipation might have been achieved without war...
“The 1787 Northwest Ordinance prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territory, and was reaffirmed in 1789 by the U.S. Congress, under the new constitution.” ... The admission of new states involved political battles over whether they should be ‘free’ of ‘slave.’-
Slavery was abolished in the British empire without a war.
The Civil War was forced upon the country; it was a war of self-defense for Lincoln but not for the Confederacy [again academic theorizing not withstanding]... Though it put an end to the worst of the great evil that was not its purpose - and it would have been indefensible to launch it for that purpose no matter how evil was slavery.
2. To excoriate the US./U.K. armed assaults on Iraq and Afghanistan is not to oppose self-defense. [I guess I should have made this point in the first place; sorry.] WWII was indeed self-defense [however much academics argue for hidden motivations.] There is, however, ample room for argument that fire-bombing of Dresden and Tokyo and the atomic attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were militarily unnecessary, not the right way to fight a war.
JH's extended quote from Juan Cole’s piece displays concern for the Iraqis and the UK and US troops; but it does not seem to add anything to the discussion. It leaves standing the point: the pre-emptive attack on Iraq was illegal and immoral; and it was not a right way to resolve the problem. Remember that Hussein’s government had accepted every demand Bush/Blair had put forth; but Bush/Blair wanted war...
3. [JH] “ I suppose you also disagree with Prof. Cole that Afghanistan was "the right war at the right time.”
[FN] Yes, I do. Remember that there were negotiations between Bush and the then-ruling Taliban government in which the Afghans offered to turn over Bin Laden for trial in a neutral country - if Bush would specify the charges. But Bush wanted war...
Now look at it - is it seven years later? The Taliban is resurgent, the government is appallingly corrupt, Afghans are dying in the crossfire of bandits, police, militias and the U.S.,.and the U.S. is about to throw more troops into the fire? And farm out combat to local militias? [An idea being severely criticized in Afghanistan...]
===
The whole underlying mindset is wrong. Here is how it should shape up:
“ ...The President, after all, did not have to declare war. He could have called the terrorists mass murderers, their deeds crimes against humanity. He could have said to the American people and the world, 'We will respond, but not in kind. We will not seek to avenge the death of innocent Americans by the death of innocent victims elsewhere, lest we become what we abhor. We refuse to ratchet up the cycle of violence that brings only ever more death, destruction and deprivation. What we will do is build coalitions with other nations. We will share intelligence, freeze assets and engage in forceful extraditions of terrorists if internationally sanctioned. I promise to do all in my power to see justice done, but by the force of law only, never by the law of force.'"
The Nation, 1/12/04 issue, William Sloane Coffin
Does anyone think of a comparable voice favoring war?
The there is Mark Twain: The War Prayer."
Fusion, your points about WII and the Civil War are well taken, but don't you think that "the ends justified the means"?
With regard to the quote from Cole, yes he does express concern for "the Iraqis and the UK and US troops", but how does it "it leaves standing the point: the pre-emptive attack on Iraq was illegal and immoral; and it was not a right way to resolve the problem."
In March 2003, Cole does not say the invasion is illegal or immoral.
Quite the opposite.
Cole says,
"I remain convinced that, for all the concerns one might have about the aftermath, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices that are about to be made on all sides."
On 3-17, 2003, Juan Cole wrote,
"Most Iraqi Shiites would be overjoyed to see the United States come in and effect regime change. But will the Shiites, brutalized by Saddam's tyranny, remain happy with the United States in the aftermath of the war." - Juan Cole
I think it's pretty clear that Juan Cole was willing to support the invasion of Iraq if it was done correctly. He was worried (and quite prescient) about the aftermath. But nonetheless, lacking the gift of hindsight, he clearly stated that regardless of his concerns about the occupation or the loss of life it would entail, he supported the invasion.
If I read Joehope [JH] right, he’s telling us again that Cole was in support of pre-emptive war against Iraq. Cole had qualms about consequences but stood firm: it would be worth the sacrifice.
It wasn’t worth the sacrifice.
It never is. Name one pre-emptive war with a level of sacrifice the people involved found worth the sacrifice.
War in self-defense may succeed; but the sacrifice can be as bad as if it had failed. The French, in WWI, suffered 1,700,000 deaths and more than four million wounded - out of a population of 40 million. In 1939 their population was almost the same as in 1919. A whole lost generation; worth it?
With polite respect, and noting that I have only his biography from Wikipedia to go by, may I say I think Cole should read Chris Hedges? I don’t find any sign in JH’s posts here, or in my reading of Cole’s posts, that Cole has seen war up close or displays any understanding of what “sacrifices” can be like. One would expect him to have a different stance - surely he has been knowledgeable of the Iraq/Iran war - and of the sacrifices forced upon the Iraqis by the Bush and Clinton sanctions... Albright thought the sacrifice of half a million children was worth it...[later she said she’d mis-spoken].
It wasn’t worth it. It was genocide.
This attitude pretends to be sophisticated, hard-headed – but it is really [a] wrong and [b] profoundly evil. It is really central to the thinking of would-be overlords and tyrants large and small.
National policy that allows for pre-emptive war is illegal as well as immoral. It is also fatally flawed. No one can foretell the course of a war; history shows us that the unexpected always happens...
The attack on Iraq has nearly bankrupted the U.S. It has cost us thousands of casualties. It has created enemies for us where we could have had people willing to co-operate. This war that was supposed to foster the American Empire bids fair to reduce the nation to a dependency of China, or India...This is not the outcome that was expected, was it...
[Osama bin Laden looks like the winner.]
The sacrifices of pre-emptive war are borne by the innocent not the perpetrators.
Pre-emptive War has no place in a democracy's national policy.
[Maybe I should say: I had twenty years’ service in the Air Force including with the Fifth Air Force in the Southwest Pacific during WWII and at Rome ADC in the Korean War...]
PS: “Don’t I think “the end justifies the means?” No; not imho. Obviously, it depends. The end needs to be well-thought out; the means need to be legal, appropriate. Etc. The phrase is a high-level abstraction, meaningless until filled in with specifics. Only then can we have a rational discussion about whatever it is.
Nice post. And a fair comment..."Pre-emptive War has no place in a democracy's national policy."
Good ole' Joe Hope's at it again. If a Republican throws troops in harm's way, attack 'em but if a Demcorat does the same thing, then it's somehow justifiable and "well worth the sacrifice". JoeHope and Juan Cole need to be more consistent and less partisan.
It isn't about partisanship, it's about supporting the right policies.
Do you really think Bush and Obama are doing the "same thing"?
ADDITIONAL COMMENT:
1. Iraqis are safer because of Bush's War.
NOT:
Saddam killed Iraqis who tried to overthrow his government. US kills Iraqis who try to overthrow the government it installed. Saddam killed a few thousand, US has killed approximately a million and a half (war plus sanctions).
3. Iraqis are materially better off because of Bush's war.
NOT:
Under the Bath government Iraqis had world-class well -equipped hospitals, medical care, schools; a dependable, healthful infrastructure of electricity, water, sewage, a priceless collection of irreplaceable anthropological and art artifacts. All seriously trashed and left un-restored, un-replaced.
5. Minorities in Iraq are safer since Bush's invasion. In fact, there have in 2008 been significant attacks on and displacement of Iraqi Christians from Mosul.
NOT:
Prior to the Bush war the archbishop of Basra toured the US and stated that there was absolutely no discrimination or oppression of non-Muslims and was pleading for relief from the sanctions, not for Christians, but for his Muslim neighbors in Basra.
Prior to the Bush war there was a Jewish neighborhood in Bagdad, not unlike Jewish neighborhoods in the US, where the Jews got along as well with the Muslims and Christians as in the US, according to a Israeli Jew who had been their before the war.
"bombed churches" "13,000 Christians have had to flee Mosul because of violence."
Thirteen thousand in one town. One of my incredibly uninformed acquaintances insisted before the war that the US should invade Iraq because Iraqis didn't have religious freedom.
Now, terrified Iraqi women wear Burqas for fear of being attacked by religious fanatics. I agree, Michael (Moore) Americans really must be the stupidest people on the planet.
I'm glad for this article as I recently got into a lather with a co-worker who claimed that the Iraqi man who threw a shoe at Dubbya wouldn't have been able to do so if Hussein hadn't been killed.
I tried to explain to him how the US gov't installed Hussein and asked if if it was worth all that loss of innocent life, but he tuned me out.
This is the guy that was disappointed that he didn't get to go to Iraq. War creates so many more monsters than it claims to dispatch.
Suggest to him that the US would be better off if it the clean water supplies were destroyed causing millions of deaths due to dysentery and other water borne deseases, and the had civilization destroyed by bombing with DU munitions. Perhaps it would become more religiously pure. Perhaps Americans would then be ingrates if they then failed to show their gratitude.
Bush could not have pulled off the bamboozle of Iraq without the help of all the major media including NPR pumping out all the jingoistic bullshit and lies 24/7...... Not to mention a Congress that is as spineless as worms.... Israel and the Zionists wanted a permanant US military presence in the Mid East and that's what they got... What Israel wants, Israel gets and to hell with the United States..... Is Obama going to stand up to Israel and its lobby???? I sincerely doubt it!!!! By Jan 20th the Zionists will have their talons so deep in his hide he will be indistinguishable from W..... Shucks, just look at his cabinet..... Empire America is going down..... But cheer up losers...It's not everyday you get to see an Empire crumble..... Sic Semper Tyrannus....
Slick Post. Thanks for that last line, "It's not everyday..." nice.
Odoco is correct with one small assumption.
The members of he "right wing", all of them do not care for the truth, otherwise they would be here (at CD,TmDis,Alternt etc) instead of where they are---
most of them seem to be living in some alternative "universe", they would rather not know the truth.
Those of us who oppose the "right wing" have an open door now to take advantage of their ignorance by making the moves to assure that the Bush Administration is delivered for trials before the International Court of Justice. Then, wrest control of this country from the ignorant fools that allowed the possibility that there would even exist "Ten Myths About Iraq", all of which stem from the US invasion of Iraq and all of the human suffering, as well as the environmental suffering that invasion has caused.
We are begining to take more suggestions and input from readers of CD, and the response from those who are supportive is just amazing. Thank you all.
The reality that the American People actually do have control of their own destiny by taking that destiny out of the hands of a few, and delivering it to the hands of the many, has begun to finally be understood.
Please keep up the wonderful response. We will have a web site soon, but for now, an email site listed below.
Your silence is your consent.
nurembergrevisited@gmail.com
Nice post.
Who has been the most admired man in the USA these last eight years? (being replaced now by Obama). GEORGE WANKER BUSH. Perhaps odoco is right and eventually someone will listen to the truth written in this article. But in a nation that thinks GEORGE WANKER BUSH is the epitome of virtue and admiration . . . I'll take a pass.
E-mail this to a friend; like odoco says, these facts should be widely circulated.
This document should be widely circulated. Use it to counter right-wing propaganda in local papers and radio shows. Share it with friends in your network circles. I use items like this all the time to refute the wingnuts where I live. A more indepth look at the lies that led to the war usually leaves them either 1) speechless, or 2) simply calling me a liar, however, they never produce evidence to the contrary. The way to be these idiots is to be as forceful and in-your-face as they are - except simply rely on facts. Eventually, some will listen.
Well done Juan Cole!
Did you mention the huge number (million, more??) that died as a result of the US invasion and occupation?
Dr Wu, the last of the big-time thinkers