Bjørn Stærk blog - The Iraq war revisited

Mark, Bellevue | 2005-12-12 06:05 | Link

I think there is an emerging case to be made that the Bush administration has been less than competent in prosecuting the Iraq war. I would be interested, though, in hearing your reasons for concluding that the Bush administration proceeded dishonestly.

Rupert | 2005-12-12 06:56 | Link

Instead of a peaceful democracy that could undermine Islamism in the long term, Iraq is an unstable state that has become a terrorist training ground.

Has it? Iraq is certainly unstable, but the former regime and it's thousands of Baathists party members were wonderful terrorists themselves. And I have yet to see any evidence that people are returning from Iraq trained as terrorists to wreak havoc elsewhere.

I think your overall analysis is off, which is understandable when you are so far from the actual events on the ground or not a part of the culture itself. I think you can make a strong case that some aspects of the war have been pursued rather successfully, particularly the military component. In almost three years of combat, the US military has lost a rather small 2000 troops, and has a frighteningly high kill ratio. It's also done this with a conventionaly small force of 100,000 troops. A strong case can also be made that the Iraq invasion has set off a chain of events in the ME, such as Libya, the AQ Khan network, Syrian pullout of Lebanon, etc.

Donald Rumsfeld gave a speech at John Hopkins University and fielded questions from the attendees about Iraq and it's effects, and it was a very interesting session. Highly recommended listening.

http://mfile.akamai.com/7111/rm/www.sais-jhu.edu/media/dec05/rumsfeld_qa.rm

OEK | 2005-12-12 07:12 | Link

I think the overthrow of a dictator should always be supported, if not orchestrated, from the inside. Sure, the people will need help from the outside to fight against oppression, but the top-down arrogance of this liberation inflames opinion and makes people hostile to the idea of freedom - even if they would have chosen freedom themselves if given the choice.

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-12-12 08:44 | Link

Mark: I would be interested, though, in hearing your reasons for concluding that the Bush administration proceeded dishonestly.

See my summary of All the President's Spin. That book is about general dishonesty, not the Iraq war as such, but honesty sticks to the person not the issue, and they also document cases of dishonesty related to Iraq.

The Bush administration stretched the truth whenever possible: by overstating the evidence for a nuclear programme in Iraq, by implying a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, and by pretending not to have made claims that have later been proven wrong, carefully adjusting their rhetoric along the way ("nuclear weapons" to "nuclear weapons programme" to "weapons of mass destruction related program activities"). Again, the open debate democracy depends on was attempted sabotaged.

Rupert: And I have yet to see any evidence that people are returning from Iraq trained as terrorists to wreak havoc elsewhere.

So you are not concerned that the Islamists who are coming to Iraq will get years of valuable experience in a state that's unable to stamp them out, then leave and use that experience elsewhere whenever they feel like doing so?

I think your overall analysis is off, which is understandable when you are so far from the actual events on the ground or not a part of the culture itself.

I'm aware that I don't have the full picture, or even a large part of it. There are biases operating everywhere, filtering the news through ideology and incompetence. These apply to everyone who, as you say, are far from the actual events on the ground, but also to those who aren't, who see a part of the reality but not necessarily the whole.

Still, my impression is - and correct me if I'm wrong - that there are still kidnappings, assasinations, terrorist attacks and fighting going on in Iraq. This strikes me as a large factor of uncertainty in a newborn democracy. I'm not saying it will all fall apart the moment the Americans leave, but I'm surprised if you're claiming that the ability of the American forces to hold Iraq together is a sign of success. Only a major military power can force the Americans to leave, what's interesting is how Iraq holds together after the Americans are gone.

OEK: I think the overthrow of a dictator should always be supported, if not orchestrated, from the inside.

What if the dictator is a threat to other countries as well, and is so good at tyranny that there is no possibility of a democratic opposition, only a military coup by another dictator?

the top-down arrogance of this liberation inflames opinion and makes people hostile to the idea of freedom

How do you know that?

OEK | 2005-12-12 11:59 | Link

Bjørn Stærk:
"What if the dictator is a threat to other countries as well, and is so good at tyranny that there is no possibility of a democratic opposition, only a military coup by another dictator?"

I would probably support an invasion. But I think that the issue of threats to other countries may be considered a different issue than internal oppression.

"How do you know that?"

I'm merely putting forth a hypothesis, or talking out of my arse, depending on how you look at it. I see that my statement was somewhat unclear. By "top-down" I mean that the invasion made the populace think of instituting democracy as a US project - "you fix it, you break it". "Arrogance" I see in the "mission completed", "bring'em on!" posturing after the war, and in the lack of detailed plans for what was to come next. An "inflamed opinion" I saw through the (possibly slanted) media, and the idea that it "makes people hostile to the idea of freedom" is, in retrospect, a non sequitor in the way that it is worded.

What I meant was that it seems to me that the people of Iraq view democratization as a US project, and their anti-Americanism may stop them from embracing it more fully. On the other hand, I posit that the insurgency during the first gulf war, if supported to its conclusion by the US at the time, might have been viewed as more bottom-up, and the liberalization might be seen more as a movement belonging to the Iraqi people.

Franko | 2005-12-12 19:17 | Link

Bjorn,
Thank you for the refreshing post. Wouldn’t it be nice if we all had the courage to occasionally reassess our assumptions on politics and more importantly, in our personal lives.

Thread One: Yes, stupid opponents make easy targets and should probably be passed over in favor of more intellectually astute critics. However, I would argue that many stupid war opponents (Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Al Franken) have been given undue attention not only by pro-war bloggers but also by the anti-war bloggers and the MSM. It is the empty tin that rattles loudest, as the saying goes. If pro-war bloggers are guilty or paying too much attention to the mentally disabled then the anti-war bloggers are guilty of over promoting them.

The lack of objective reporting in the MSM and blogsphere could be another thread altogether. In any case, I think you are missing the whole point of having a blogsphere if you think the citizen-journalist has the same obligation to be non-partisan as does the MSM. The beauty of the blogsphere is that you can now find your news or editorial content in the exact flavor you want. Whatever your personal perspective, you can find a community of like minded individuals on the net ready to service you. What makes the blogsphere better than the MSM is that the bias is upfront and displayed proudly. The obvious bias in the MSM is hidden from view and it’s existence, while painfully obvious, is always and unforgivably, denied by its practitioners.

Great post Bjorn.

Franko

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-12-12 19:30 | Link

Franko: The beauty of the blogsphere is that you can now find your news or editorial content in the exact flavor you want.

You find that beautiful? I find it scary. I think amateur media has given a real boost to conspiracy theories and milder feedback loops. I'm not saying I regret that freedom, but now that we have it it's our responsibility to face the dark side of it.

What makes the blogsphere better than the MSM is that the bias is upfront and displayed proudly.

Yes, but this shouldn't make us think that bias is a good thing. Bias is a weakness we all have, the tendency to interpret facts to fit our own random or irrational preconceptions, and it's better to admit that weakness than to hide it, but only so we can better fight it. Objectivity is the goal - presenting the world as it is, not as we want it to be.

BjørnE | 2005-12-12 21:00 | Link

Bjørn,

When I find an objective, non biased, analysis of the background for the war, I will let you know if you don't find it first.

Am I the only one who rembers what it was like to live under the horrors of the nazi occupation in Norway? Since I was old enough to rember Norway during later partof the occupation, I was not hard to convince that removing Saddam was the right thing to do.

The Chamberlain University of Peace did not score any points with me.

We should perhaps also remember that Saddam started two wars against his neighbours, and that the second war still was a truce.

Further, he had used WMD, and history showed that evan nuclear capasity was (an probably still is) available on the market, under the wachful eyes of IAEA.

Also, like Norway under the nazis, there were at least 1/5 of the population who was in power, and they did not like to loose their position, and they were not the good guys.

That there were mistakes in a war conducted far away, in a foreign culture with an oppressed population, should not be a supprise. In the history of human conflicts, this is the rule rather than the deviation.

So, Bjørn, before you put your chips down, give it another year and let the people of Iraq be the judges.

Oh, we have not discussed the UNSC, nor the "Oil for Food" scandale, but it gave some hints why some of the mighty members of the SC behaved the way they did.

With hopes for a successful election on Thursday, and Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you all.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-12-12 23:28 | Link

For an excellant counterpoint -- really well done see today's Wall St. Journal:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/

The Panic Over Iraq
What they're really afraid of is American success.

BY NORMAN PODHORETZ
Monday, December 12, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

Anthony | 2005-12-12 23:47 | Link

I have seen people claim that the Iraq war was a bad idea because it supposedly turned a mostly secular dictatorship into an Islamic theocracy instead of a democracy. What are your views on that, Bjorn?

Rupert | 2005-12-13 01:04 | Link

Bjorn,

The evidence that I have seen indicates that most of the people perpetrating attacks on American forces and Iraqi civilians are Iraqi's themselves. Foreigners make up a small amount of the overall terrorist forces. And most of them are used for suicide bombings. Driving a car full of explosives requires very little training and obviously they aren't going to return home. So in short, no I'm not all that worried. The bombers in the Madrid and London bombings weren't at all involved in Iraq, so I think that worries over European terrorism should be focused on home grown rather than returning jihadis.

what's interesting is how Iraq holds together after the Americans are gone.

It may indeed be interesting, but I don't see how relevant it is. My impression is that most Iraqi's have long wanted Sadaam gone. Furthermore, Iraq is a foreign construct, held together in the past by Sadaam's rule, not really by any sense of nationhood, although surely that exists in a sizeable percent of the population.

I think that the violence that plagues Iraq now has more to do with Arab tribal culture than our invasion, although an obviously weak central government hampers the enforcement of law. I think the ultimate success or failure of the Iraq invasion won't be known for decades, but the evidence to date indicates to me that Arabs are enthusiastic Democrats, so I'm optimistic, although there's always the Islamic factor which I think is inherently anti-democratic( I know you disagree ) and I think those two forces will push and pull for quite a while.

Jan Haugland, Bergen | 2005-12-13 03:24 | Link

Bjørn, your doubts and infrequent posting of late have somehow reminded me of the old joke about what you get if you cross a Jehovah's Witness with an agnostic: someone who knocks on your door but has nothing to say.

I certainly see you point regarding certainty and doubt, and engaging the thoughtful center as opposed to the fringes. But in this part of the world Michael Moore is not considered a wingnut, but a fearless champion of truth. His opinions are mainstream, and his distortions are peddled as truth.

mika. | 2005-12-13 04:23 | Link

Bjørn,

There's a difference between what was said, and what the MSM mendaciously emphasize and fraudulently report as having been said. Don't confuse the two. Further, you're viewing events largely through a reality distortion field (RDF). This RDF is unscrupulously created by a perfidious MSM that is subservient to Jihadi intimidation, corruption, and their own self aggrandizement. Though you might be aware of this to an extent, elements of their propaganda can escaped your scrutiny and overwhelm your subconscious. I would advise you reexamine what you THINK you know, and the sources of that knowledge.

mika. | 2005-12-13 04:43 | Link

This is just their latest programming: CNN headline: "Anti-Arab rioters smash cars, windows in Sydney." That headline is a lie. It's 180 degrees wrong. It should have read: "Arab rioters smash cars, windows in Sydney." But watching CNN and the other MSM networks you wouldn't know that.

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-12-13 08:45 | Link

Anthony: I have seen people claim that the Iraq war was a bad idea because it supposedly turned a mostly secular dictatorship into an Islamic theocracy instead of a democracy. What are your views on that, Bjorn?

Too early to say.

Jan Haugland: what you get if you cross a Jehovah's Witness with an agnostic: someone who knocks on your door but has nothing to say.

That's a wonderful image. I wish people would begin knocking on doors to say nothing, or maybe to ask questions, or spread doubt.

But in this part of the world Michael Moore is not considered a wingnut, but a fearless champion of truth.

To the extent that's true, it makes Norway part of the fringe. Attacking those fringe views is important, but irrelevant to the issue itself. Showing that Michael Moore is wrong doesn't make other critics of the war wrong. Focusing your attention on such wackoes does, however, makes it easier to dismiss others just as easily. It trains you to use the same style of attack on anyone you disagree with.

Also, how deeply rooted is Michael Moore's worldview in Norway? Has anyone tried to find out?

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2005-12-13 13:16 | Link

Bjørn wrote: "Objectivity is the goal - presenting the world as it is, not as we want it to be".

That is, if an objective understanding of the world is indeed possible. In the physical domain you might say that it would be. In the world off politics it surely is not.

Thus, the idea of objectivism in journalism (or in blogging, a stepchild of journalism, anyway) is entirely utopic. The idea that MSM have an obligation to be non-partisan, repeated by Franko above, belongs in fairytales. In the real world it is a standard that no media - "citizen media" or not - will ever live up to.

But is it still worth keeping it as an ideal? Well, that depends. To continually seek truth should of course be the ideal of any researcher, any journalist, any blogger. But to combine this search for the unattainable objectiveness with pretending to actually have attained objectiveness will fail. When the subjectiveness is poorly hidden it becomes embarassing. When it is well hidden it becomes flat, soulless and boring journalism.

Here lies a problem of the blogosphere, as well.

While political bloggers (I will leave those who write about their cats out of this) are generally not good writers (the biggest problem of the blogosphere), they are biased. Often they refuse to admit that they are, and occassionally they instead portray themselves as being amongst the sole champions of the one undeniable truth.

The blogosphere is pretty much precisely like MSM. Same shit, different wrapping. Only thing is that it is even more crap to dig through before one finds a pearl.

I used to hope that the blogosphere could save us from the simplifications of MSM. These days I hope that MSM can save us from the simplifications of the blogosphere.

Lene | 2005-12-13 16:42 | Link

I also supported the Iraq war, and I supported Bush. I will still take both of them over the alternatives as they were at the time. However, we are in Iraq now, and W. is the president.

The words of the late Steven Vincent, who was kidnapped and killed in Basra after a story he did for the New York Times, still rings as true to my ears as when I first read them in March of 2004.

"Now, when I'm asked if the U.S. can succeed, I can only join others in answering: "We must. The prospect of failure in Iraq is too catastrophic to conceive." It's not a policy so much as a statement of faith: that the center will hold, that democracy and freedom will triumph, that tyrants cannot long escape accountability and justice."

Lets argue about what we could have done better when the job is complete. Internationalism on behalf of freedom is a virtue.

Franko | 2005-12-13 20:07 | Link

Øyvind: The idea that MSM have an obligation to be non-partisan, repeated by Franko above, belongs in fairytales.

I agree with you that true objectivity is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve in political writing. However I think you misunderstand me; I don’t believe that the MSM has an obligation to be non-partisan in their reporting, only that they have an obligation to be honest about the bias in their reporting. My issue with the MSM is not that they are biased. I am biased, I am very comfortable with my biases and hold no grudge against those that hold similar or differing views. What I think is unforgivable, is to claim that you have no bias or agenda when in fact you do. So, if you claim to be non-partisan then yes, you do have an obligation to live up to that claim. It is in this respect I believe the blogsphere to be more honest in terms of being up front about the political angle they are coming from.

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2005-12-13 20:55 | Link

Yes, I do seem to have misunderstood you. The problem is indeed "to claim that you have no bias or agenda when in fact you do". This is a disease of MSM.

Sadly, it is a malady that is also commonly seen in the blogosphere, though.

Perry de Havilland | 2005-12-14 01:00 | Link

All news media is biased, the difference is bloggers (usually) admit it. Bias + Transparency = Credibility. The important things is not objectivity but honesty.

Mark, Bellevue | 2005-12-14 01:18 | Link

Øyvind said:
"That is, if an objective understanding of the world is indeed possible. In the physical domain you might say that it would be. In the world off politics it surely is not.

I think this is a very good point and one that also applies to governments. If I may, I'd like to humbly marshal this observation against the claim that Bush has presided over a dishonest administration. I have been open to persuasion on this. I have engaged in alot of back and forth with my liberal friends on the whole "Bush Lied; People died" claim; the best I can convince myself of is 1) Bush, out of a combination of hubris, misplaced idealism, and naivete pursued a variety of foreign policy goals in a less than competent fashion (the jury is still out IMHO) and 2) Bush, not atypically for politicians and not unethically, aggressively pursued his agenda as it emerged and he understood it. Bush, as everyone knows, fancies himself a practical sort as opposed to us "pointy headed" types. This practicality caused him to pivot from the republican isolationism (Taft, Buchanan) that he ran on to republican neo-conservativism (grafted into the republican party with Reagan) because he believed it best addressed the emerging crisis. More than anything, it was a return to discredited Wilsonianism. This may be incompetence - we'll see - but I don't think its dishonest.

Andrew X, USA | 2005-12-14 05:02 | Link

Bjorn -

Kudos on a thought-provoking post. I support the war and this President, still. But I admire your thoughfulness.

Thoughts -

I agree with Mark (#1). I simply don't see evidence of flat out dishonesty, certainly not more than many Presidents, and ourselves, have used any number of times. Yes, we all "spin". That is not lying, it is making your case. I smply repeat, a thousand times if necessary, all the things many of Mr. Bush's opponents all over the world were saying about Hussein all through the '90's, and the irresponsibilty of assuming they were all wrong, and "hoping for the best" with Hussein.

Regarding Bush's competence, I happen to think the naivete of many of his opponents staggers the mind. Howard Dean quite literally said that it was not his (Dean's) job to come up with alternatives, only to criticize what actually was occuring.

Something I see virtually NO comment on whatsoever, is what economists call "opportunity cost". What is the opportunity cost of NOT invading Iraq? Let me try a list.

---

1)We are stuck in Saudi Arabia... forever.

2)Every single day of survival is a victory for Saddam and the absolute worst elements of Middle Eastern power that he represents. Every day he grows stronger, we grow weaker, by the simple psychological and political dynamics.

3)All that democratizing movement, and weakening of autocracy that we see, in Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Libya, Saudi, etc? Forget it. Zip. Squat. Count on it. NONE, repeat NONE, of it had even begun in the 20 years before Bush began to seriously gear up for Iraq. None of it. So, forget all that. Nada.

4)Saddam, every day, becomes more of the "new Sala-adin, standing up to the Superpower. And winning. In the Arab mind... winning... big. By being the worst possible kind of tyrant.

5)Bush says 30,000 Iraqis died (about right). The "human rights" activists (hah) of the 90's said 5,000 Iraqi children were dying every MONTH because of sanctions. Do the math. That's 150,000 CHILDREN alone, dead since March 2003. Oh, well. 5,000 more next month. 5,000 more after that. 5,000 more after that. Yawn. Oh, well.

6)Number of elections now seen in the Arab world by 2005? Zero. None. Nada. Wouldn't have happened. Don't kid yourselves. This is the autocratic Middle East we are talking about.

7)Argue the wrongness of Iraqi Freedom all you want. The US has established that, pull a 9/11, and you don't know WHAT the hell we are going to do, and our own allies won't stop us if we get a hard-on for you. What is the cost of NOT sending that message, post 9/11?

8)Something a bit cynical, but significant. Remember, as the jihadists go to Iraq to learn form a "terrorist training ground", the US military is learning volumes on how to fight them at the same time, arguably much more than they. Ignore Iraq for a moment. Surely you agree that, post 9/11, the US is at war. Shall we stick with 20th century knowledge to fight a 21st century asymmetric enemy in a war that will reach far beyond Iraq?

9)Iran is going to be about what it is today. But we would not be in anything close to the strategic postition we are now to put pressure on them.

10) Israel would not be withdrawing from any territory, given all of the above, so that mess goes on.... and on..... and on..... and on.....

---

ALL of the above are issues President Bush/Gore/Kerry would have had to answer and figure out without going into Iraq, and I could go on. The fact is, I simply see very little, virtually NO, addressing of any of it in the vast pool of opinion I have seen over the past years.

The truth is, it was a corrupt and even dying Middle East as a whole that gave us 9/11, not just AQ. As a direct result, Mr. Bush took a sledgehammer to the entire monstrous edifice, and nothing will ever be the same. Now they are building in a way they never have before. Building is much harder than destroying, which is all that region has managed for decades. Children destroy, blithely and for fun. Grown-ups build, with grit and determination.

Mr. Bush has more of the latter in his little finger than his opponents do put together. God Bless him for it.

Andrew X, USA | 2005-12-14 05:07 | Link

Oops, forgot ALL the benefits of uncovering the oil-for-food scandal, which was killing Iraqis, while lining the pockets of beaurocrats from New York to Geneva to Paris to New Delhi. All that info? Nothing. None of it. Not a clue. Business as usual.

I think I could add to this list every five minutes, but I'll stop now.

But everything I have listed we have to address if we are going to seriously propose a retroactive decision not to go into Iraq. Anyone who has specifics on them, please do chime in.

James of England, San Diego | 2005-12-14 05:24 | Link

By the threads:

1: Where do you have to be to stop being marginal? In the legislature? A leading collumnist? The most successful documentary in history? I wish that the crazy arguments were just those made my the insignificant, but the Iraq war approaches trade in the degree that crazy beliefs and incoherent positions *are* the European mainstream. The "blood for oil", "Bush lied, People died", "life was better under Saddam" and suchlike remain common, particularly amongst those who rule us.

2: The struggle with the media is, indeed, partly tangential, although Iraq has shown it at its worst. Still, it strikes me as being hugely important in broadening the debate, making the media a little more accountable, and making commercial pressures on the MSM clearer and hence hopefully moderating their political biases. Being from the UK, I have particularly enjoyed watching our own Pravda, the BBC, taking an occasional beating.

The attention on it seems worth it because, in its own way, the debate about the media is more important than the debate about Iraq. The debate about Iraq will hopefully have little effect (ie. we won't abandon them prematurely). The debate about the media should have some effect. As an aside, I'm not sure that I'd agree that the blogosphere didn't include criticism of blogs. Some new media absolutists, but also many who held the contrary position. That's partly why I like blogs. I'm a big believer in Hegelian dialectic.

3: Obviously, with any politician, what you see depends on how you look at 'em. My field is trade (well, international commercial law), and in successful trade negotiation he's been the most successful president since Kennedy. Almost completely untold story. Other than social security, he's achieved just about everything he's put his mind to (still working on immigration reform). You might disagree with his aims, but I think it's harder to call him incomptetent than a lot of people think.

On torture: There's a consensus opinion that torture doesn't give you useful results. Of course, there haven't been many studies on it recently, but St. Augustine lived at a time when it was practiced, openly, by scholarly minded people. His view of its investigative was so high that he felt that good Christian judges should be willing to torture the occasional innocent man to death rather than holding back and either letting everyone off or punishing many innocent people. The distinction that people miss is that it should be an engine of the state, not of law. If you want people to say something, you can make them say it, making it relatively useless for confessions or for fingering others. If you want the truth, though, it is valuable. It's much harder to be a good lier when you're high, sleep deprived, and in pain. I'm not saying that it has been worthwhile, but I think we'll be in a better position to make the judgment in a decade or so when we know more about what knowledge was gained from it, how many lives saved.

4: Well, yeah. Incidentally, the uncovering of the institutionalised corruption of the UN was one of the benefits of the liberation, not least because it might provide a disincentive for future UN officials and assorted foreign ministers to take bribes from dictators.

5: The final thread, and the most surprising one.

Why do you think we're losing? Assuming that we had average luck, I get the impression that that would be a vindication for the decision to go to war. If we do lose, and the country collapses, then, yeah, it wasn't worth it. If we win, if Iraq becomes another Bahrain (although, of course, Bahrain wasn't a democracy before we invaded), would you feel that your earlier position was right?

My own thought on the best justification is the 1,000,000 Iraqis killed in the decade before liberation by sanctions, by us. In the last couple of years, 30,000, at least according to Bush. Maybe 5 times that, or more, according to the Lancet. Still, it's a death toll that will shrink, rather than going on forever.

James of England, San Diego | 2005-12-14 05:25 | Link

Neat, Andrew. Rare to see someone make the same point I was, and at the same time.

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2005-12-14 10:13 | Link

Mark, Bellevue wrote: "This [what Bush is doing] may be incompetence - we'll see - but I don't think its dishonest."

Personally I do not know what is worst; an incompetent president or a dishonest president.

If one keeps at a basis that the goal for the United States is to create a stable and democratic Iraq one can of course hope for nothing but success for American politics. Whether the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, like I did believe, or the right thing to do, as several posters here believe, is irrelevant.

What we have to focus on now is to do our best to contribute to building a democratic and peaceful Iraq. In this area American politics have in a number of cases been incompetent and counterproductive.

I do hope that this incompetence is not mainly caused by a lacking understanding of Middle Eastern history, and that Bush have advisors that are better than some off his supporters. When Andrew X claims that "they are now building in a way they never have before", this is quite simply not true.

mika. | 2005-12-14 11:02 | Link

"To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." -- Sun Tzu, the Art of War

The goal of enemy propaganda is to eliminate the possible cognition of victory and therefore destroy any possible hope for victory. That's what the MSM has tried very hard to do. Thanks to the internet and independent bloggers they have failed in that mission. The conversation has now shifted, if ever imperceptibly to some. ;) It's not about questions of "military" victory (a goal declared impossible up until recently), but what follows after. And what follows after is the best kind of victory. Hope.

judith l. miley, USA | 2005-12-14 12:53 | Link

Until I read that Russia, France, Germany, England, etc. have re-vamped their intelligence units, I can only believe that Iraq had the WMDs. The USA is the only intelligence unit that is having a do over (and the more you hear about the internal war at the CIA, the more you wonder what that is all about). Years ago, talking to my WWII veteran father, about the My Lai horror and how upset I was about it, he told me I was a fool to think that only occurred in Vietnam. Awful things occur in war, he said, ALL WARS. And from what I have read, post-WWII was not TIDY. It is unfortunate that your resolve has dissolved. If you think the mid-east was stable before Iraq, you have a very low threshhold for orderly conduct.

lucklucky, Lisboa | 2005-12-14 14:26 | Link

This is not relevant to the right or wrong of invading Iraq, the Americans are very far behind the previous regime in terms of torture and sadism. It's more a question of moral corruption,(...)
-Historical irrelevant and erronuous. Read books about 2nd World War. Small example: Most of Skorzeny Commandoes were put in front of a firing squad after being catched in Ardennes forests in Battle of the Bulge in American uniforms, no court...

The fear of a nuclear program was the main justification for the war
- No it wasnt. It was the WMD, that is much more than Nukes. While it wasnt discovered a major program (2 sarin rounds were used to attack US patrols) all pieces were in place. And all the signs and behaviour pointed to it. Including development of ballistic missiles(with SA-2 anti air missile engines) with a so tiny warhead that only reason for them would be wmd.

I am always puzzled by some supporters of war that expected that all things will fall in place after invasion. That didnt and doesnt make any sense.
It's a big struggle to change hundreds of years of behaviour.

Nothing in your post makes the case: Bush dishonest.
Main failures in my opinion:

1-Security after Invasion, since State Department worked to undermine the operation Bush should have put someone that could control it and not Powell.

2-Military procurement, Logistics: Humvv unable to cope with IEDs and no flexibility and solution - in 2WW 1-2 years was enough to design a new tank , many gear with problems in a US Army always looking for golden bullet and Hyper tech stuff, instead of plain Infantry needs.

Andrew X | 2005-12-14 14:37 | Link

RE: "When Andrew X claims that "they are now building in a way they never have before", this is quite simply not true."

Oyvind, you put this out there without a shred of arguement to back up why what I said is not true. Your post simply asssumes Bush is inncompetent/dishonest, and moves right on without any substantiation whatsoever, which adds basically nothing to the conversation.

When I say, "building in way they never have before", here's ONE piece of backup...

Within the past TWENTY-FOUR HOURS there was a televised debate in Iraq and beyond between the sitting Iraqi leader, Mr. Allawi, and two of his challengers. An Arab leader, on national TV, has to explain his policies, how he arrived at them, why they are right, and two challengers say, "no, these OTHER policies are in fact best, and here's why you are wrong, Mr. President", the Iraqi people must then CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES who deserves their vote..... and the international Bush-haters DO NOT CARE. At all.

Thaty lack of interest is an unmitigated and unforgivable disgrace. Those debates alone will send out ripples of democracy that will make millins ask "Why can't MY leader answer questions like that?", etc. That impact can be subtle but enormous, which is why tyrants the world over fear it. But millions of Westerners who would DEMAND those rights for themselves would literally see them denied to Iraqis if it serves a Bush-loathing agenda.

Don't think we don't notice that selfishness... it staggers the mind.

OK, I've digressed a bit from the "building" argument, so that isn't aimed at you. We all can point at those it is aimed at, and they are many.

But guess what. I AM right. They ARE building.. something not seen before in the entire history of the Arab world. It is a dificult and painful birth, fraught with setbacks, real and potential. Kind of like raising a child... or birthing a democracy.

And millions who take their rights for granted greet it with contempt and indifference. In THAT, I shall not mince words, may lie the end one day of Western Civilization, and our freedom, and our culture. That contempt and indifference is far more a threat to our grandchildren than any outside enemy.

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2005-12-14 15:36 | Link

Andrew X:

When it comes to the areas where incompetence has been shown I think Bjørn has already summed up some off them.

The military invasion was done with great expertise, although it was slowed done by a number of factors, and actually took longer than I had expected of the most modern, well-equipped and strongest military force in the world. It is winning the peace the Coalition have done a number off grave mistakes.

Abuse and outright torture, handing an excellent propaganda tool as Abu Ghraib to radical Islamists and reactionary baathists, was a major screwup. But it started before, by basing the whole war on WMD when Iraq never had any chemical or bacteriological weapon worthy of the name (if conventional weapons had been used in for instance Halabja, the number off deaths would have been just as high, but the effect of fear would have been less) was also handing a gift over to terrorists: "Here you go... a nifty propaganda tool, just tell everyone that America is lying". When leftists like I can point out this, radical Islamists can and do to.

Putting your eggs in the basket of Ahmed Chalabi was hardly a good idea either. Alienating the Sunni minority - not a smart idea. I could go on forever.

Some of these things has probably happened because of bad luck. Some have happened because of incompetence. Too many off the people that have been taking important decisions have not had the necessary cultural insight to do so. It does not help being smart alone.

And when it comes to the Iraqis building... yes, definitely. This is however not the first time a Western intervention has tried to drag a Middle Eastern country into the modern world by the use of arms. General Frederick Stanley Maude, a Brit, is famous for stating this after entering Baghdad in 1917:

"Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators."

Like in other Arabic countries under French or British influence political reforms were undertaken, although in the framework (not so foreign to Europeans) of constitutional monarchies. The British goverment laid out the political and constitutional framework for Iraqs government, and failed drastically. In the twenties the Brits used poison gas in their efforts to put down a rebellion.

Through the failure to include Sunnis to a larger degree in the political process (a failure the Sunnis are of course partly to blame for themselves), there is again a risk that an Iraqi government while being more modern than its neighbours will lack legitimacy and ultimately fail drastically... being reduced to a Shiite-dominated dictatorship, to a state of civil war, etc.

That is the negative viewpoint to take. Other and positive viewpoints are possible; one has to consider the major steps Iraq has taken since it was liberated from the hands off Saddam Hussein. The successes are important, noticeable and a good example. And they are frail, partly because of misguided Coalition policies, partly because of bad luck, partly because the reactionary forces in Iraq are much stronger than I really like to think about.

Attempts at representative democracy is nothing new in the Middle East. Reforms in the direction of more freedom has been attempted in Iraq as well, under the Interim Constitution of 1958, political prisoners were freed and Kurds that had taken part in uprisings in 43 and 45 were given amnesty, and welcomed home. The ban on the communist party was lifted. The promising developments lasted for a good year or so.

Realizing that this is not the first shot at democracy, and realizing why democracy has failed a number of times in the region is essential. Believing that something new is going on in Iraq, when it in fact is not, is dangerous, as it draws attention away from the very valid lessons of history.

mika. | 2005-12-14 15:52 | Link

Andrew X,

Fjordman has an interesting entry on his blog as to why might be (the contempt and indifference), at least as it concerns Europe. It's titled The Second Fall of Rome. Well worth reading:

http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/11/second-fall-of-rome.html

mika. | 2005-12-14 15:55 | Link

erratum: ..why ^that might be..

Andrew X, USA | 2005-12-14 16:53 | Link

Ok, Oyvind, that's more backup.

Some responses....

"The military invasion was done with great expertise, although it was slowed done by a number of factors....."

The three week timing was about what the military expected all along. But here's the biggest point... That analysis was NOT what a great many media outlets, ESPECIALLY the BBC, said at the time. For them, it was one long litany of failure, quagmire, and catastrophe, so much so that the Ark Royal task force blacked out the BBC and lodged a formal complaint about it's coverage, not because it was damaging morale or the like, but because what they were saying was either patently false, or true in the same way that explaining a supermodels body by focusing entirely on her excratory fucntions is "true". True, but hardly the "whole truth" as the law would say.

Does this very dynamic sound at all familiar? Bush's US approval ratings last month hit a low of 37% (now rising). The media's overall approval ratings over the past five years have never gotten above 30%, and circulation/ratings are plummeting.

Thus, for me to assume (with factual backup) that the media are totally focused on the negative in Iraq is hardly out of line. The BBC is the worst.

That brings me to Abu Ghraib. A contemptible event. But have you looked specifically into some of the details of both French policy on suspected terrorists, as well as the conditions they are kept in? There are some hairy stories out there, buthas the New York Times or the BBC covered them for 45 out of 60 days the way Abu Ghraib was?

Excratory functions. They are not pleasant, quite disgusting, and in this case not the whole story by a loooong shot, but hardly worth the media they got. The debates I mentioned above? 30 seconds on CNN, if that. That's sound editorial judgement? Please.

Alienating the Sunni majority? C'mon. They are 20%, who have owned everything and everyone in that country for decades. How are they NOT going to be alienated. It is an absolute FACT that both Shia and Kurds have been "alienated" by American officers who are stopping them from going off on the Sunnis big time.

Rather than continue point by point, it is ionteresting to note that much of what we are saying will be dated within a week. I simply believe that, if the elections go well.... for the THIRD time... it will be a watershed event of enormous consequence for the Arab world and the world as a whole. (One reason it has failed in the past is that statist totalitarianism and/or socialism was seen as a viable option, which is largely not the case today).

And if it does succeed, those fat, happy, and free Westerners who fought to keep it from happening with every ounce of their strength will not be forgotten.

Shannon Love | 2005-12-14 18:03 | Link

Bjorn,

Iraq's illusory nuclear program...The fear of a nuclear program was the main justification for the war...

I think you are laboring under a serious misapprehension. "WMD" does not equal "nukes."

I am unaware of any analyst who thought Iraq actually had an operating nuclear program of any magnitude. Nobody expected that Saddam would be able to produce nuclear weapons of any kind in any time frames of less than a decade and only then without sanctions (barring having someone give him enriched uranium).

The WMD threat poised by Saddam came largely from chemical and biological weapons that could be delivered anywhere in the world anonymously by terrorist networks. Of those two, chemical weapons, specifically nerve gas poised a significant risk . A thimbleful could kill everyone in an airplane. Ten liters of nerve gas can kill tens of thousands.

Even given what we know now, it is clear that previous to the invasion, Saddam could, AT ANYTIME OF HIS CHOOSING have created the small batches of nerve gas needed to kill thousands. Creating nerve gas requires (1) skilled chemist and technicians who know how to make nerve gas, which Saddam had because they made his nerve gas in the past (2) a few million dollars, which he had (3) off the shelf reagents (4) an ad hoc facility that would fit inside a semi-trailer. Every intelligence service in the free world, including France and Germany, believed that Saddam had deployable chemical weapons at the time of the invasion.

I think you believe Bush was dishonest because you never actually heard or read what Bush actually said. Instead, you heard only the meta-debate, what other people said he had said. If you thought "nukes" every time Bush said WMD's then that is not Bush's fault. Its yours for not researching the technical issues involved.

Shannon Love | 2005-12-14 18:06 | Link

Bjorn,

Iraq's illusory nuclear program...The fear of a nuclear program was the main justification for the war...

I think you are laboring under a serious misapprehension. "WMD" does not equal "nukes."

Rupert | 2005-12-14 18:57 | Link

Andrew X,

For your reconstruction Jones, peruse this.(via Econopundit )

Chock full of graph goodness.

Andrew X< USA | 2005-12-14 19:52 | Link

Rupert -

Oh my effin God! That is some amazing data. Total thanks!

But remember.... "We aren't building anything" over there. I haven't seen it on CNN or the BBC, ergo it hasn't happened.

mika. | 2005-12-14 21:04 | Link

Hmm,.. and I thought the hysteria over WMD had something to do with head panties.

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2005-12-14 23:23 | Link

"Alienating the Sunni majority? C'mon"

I think you should read what I wrote once more. I am talking about the Sunni minority, not the other way around.

If you are off the belief that the whole Sunni minority consists of Saddam-supporters, you are of course wrong. But let me avoid building that strawman. I am convinced that you know better, and thus I would like to ask you to refrain from oversimplifying the Sunni question in this way. Frankly, it reminds me off orthodox Marxists and their "dictatorship of the proletariat":

Alienate the bourgeouise? They are so-and-so-few and have owned everything and everyone in that country for decades. How are they NOT going to be alienated.

The point remains that the Iraqi democracy has thus far failed to include Sunnis more than marginally, and this is a failure that threathen to undermine any long-lasting development towards democracy in Iraq. There are signs that Sunnis will play a larger role in the parliament soon to be elected, however, which would give reason for some optimism.

I am also totally uninterested in hearing what France is doing in this or that regards. I have never claimed that French politics are particularily brilliant - in fact I have claimed the opposite. I do not see any reason to discuss France in a discussion that has little to do with France. Neither do I see the point of discussing BBCs coverage of the conflict. It is an irrelevant and boring discussion.

Personally I did oppose the war, but I also believed that the major war effort would be done in less time than it was. If any pundit in any media thought that it was the war effort in itself that was going to turn into a quaqmire he was wrong, and he has been proven so. I was wrong myself, too, believing that the difficulties of city warfare in Baghdad would create more problems for American forces than they did.

Some of the questions I think should be discussed, and where I think Westerners without political titles might have something to contribute with, and a chance to do so, is:

1. How do we best support the democratic elements in Iraqi society, regardless of whether these are pro- or anti-American?

2. How can we best ensure that the Iraqi state, not yet a democracy, but on its way to become one, will continue on that path?

For Americans and people from other countries having military forces in Iraq (Norway has, I believe, one man at the moment) it should also be off interest to discuss how one can best achieve the combination of getting out of there as soon as possible with ensuring that everything wont go boom when one does. That is quite a nut.

As mentioned there are a number of areas were I feel that the Coalition has failed, where their efforts have been counterproductive rather than productive. These areas are necessary to discuss openly to avoid similar things from happening again.

Discussing openly does not mean "support Bush blindly, because he liberated Iraq", nor does it mean "try to excuse [whatever] with something someone else has did that somehow can be porrayed as worse". If one locks one self into that kind of an ideological cage, one asks to get stuck, and one will get stuck.

This is, ironically, the same thing that is happening to those on the Not-so-smart-Left that think that they are fighting in the cause of "anti-Imperialism" when they support local fascists, reactionaries or just plain criminals in Iraq who fight for anything but democracy.

I interpret Bjørns post as an attempt off breaking away from those ideological traps. Jan Haugland might get the impression that this means that Bjørn has nothing to say, really, but if Bjørn wants to knock at my door down in Mechelen and have a discussion over a Belgian beer or five; he is more than welcome.

Andrew X,USA | 2005-12-15 00:09 | Link

O -

'Majority' was a misprint. I did say they are 20%. That is self-evidently a minority, and thus the point.

As for "caring what the BBC is saying, I DO care, intensely. It is not like they are not a player here, a passionless eye merely recording what it happening. I merely mention French detainees to point out media hypocrisy and mendaciousness.

What is being said about Iraq globally has an ENORMOUS effect on what happens on this planet, and the BBC is the biggest global player, bigger than CNN in that regard. I will not dimiss them as just an observer. They most certainly are not, and they know it very well, and act accordingly.

Thus my point. Mr. President says things are going well in many respects. The media virtually refuses to report on that. And, from intense reading of alternate sources such as.... oh... personal reports from soldiers on the ground for example (many of them), I don't see a single reason to trust the MSM media filters any more than the President. THey have proven every bit as agenda driven, every bit as willing to ignore Fact A and play up Fact B if B fits their agenda and A does not.

So dismiss though you may, the international coverage of this war is a huge part of the story. And if Iraq does succeed as I think and pray it will, a LOT of journalists are going to have a LOT of explaining to do.

mika. | 2005-12-15 00:18 | Link

Ahh, yes. You wants a quick fix. Resolution by the end of the evenings’ episode and TV dinner.

But let me ask you this. All this talk of mistakes and failures; Without the violence, would there have been the urgency to participate, the urgency for change? Would there have been an understanding of courage, if there wasn't first an understanding of fear? Would there have been an understanding of victory, without the taste of defeat? Would there have been an understanding of resolve, without first understanding difficulty.

Hope you're not too drunk to contemplate these tangental philosophical musings as you ponder how to best ensure that Iraq, on its way to becoming a democracy, will continue on that path to democracy.

Andrew X, USA | 2005-12-15 01:34 | Link

Mika --

All I can add is....

----

There can be no triumph without loss.....

There can be no victory without suffering....

There can be no freedom without sacrifice.....

And all you have to decide.... is what to do with the time that is given to you.

----

"This is but a taste of the terror Sauramon will unleash. We MUST fight.

"I will not risk open war."

"Open war is upon you, whether you would risk it or not."

----

ELROND: "Gandalf, the enemy is moving. Sauron's forces are massing in the East, his Eye is fixed on Rivendell! And Saruman, you tell me, has betrayed us -

Our list of allies grows thin..."

"This peril belongs to all Middle earth. They must decide how to end it. Not just for themselves but for those who come after. The time of the Elves is over. My people are leaving these shores.

Who will you look to when we have gone? The dwarves? They hide in their mountains seeking riches. They care nothing for the troubles of others."

GANDALF: It is in Men that we must place our hope.

ELROND: Men!! Men are weak... The race of Men is failing. The blood of Numenor is all but spent, its pride and dignity forgotten. It is because of men that the Ring survives.

----

"What can Men do against such reckless hate?"

"Ride. Ride out to meet it."

----

"The fires of Isengard will spread....

The woods of Hobbiton and Buckland will burn....

And everything that is green and good in this world will be gone....

There won't BE a Shire, Pippin."

----

"There may come a day, when the courage of men fails, when we forsake our freedom, and break all bonds of fellowship. But it is not this day.

This day.... we FIGHT!"

"By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you, STAND, MEN OF THE WEST!"

mika. | 2005-12-15 05:33 | Link

"This day.... we FIGHT!"

If not that, at least we can try and reduce the number of
dumb ass, leftist Orcs we have to put up with.

Anders, Oslo | 2005-12-15 11:02 | Link

Bjørn:

It's interesting to read you on this topic now. I apologize for not having read the many comments here. There are a few things I object to in your otherwise fairly solemn and thoughtful post.

This part I do not agree with:

"This does not by itself show that the invasion was wrong.....Perhaps We had bad luck."

We had bad luck? Well, so did Iraqi civilians who had war brought to their country and have been killed in thousands for bogus reasons. (Saddam could have continued to fix that if that was what we wanted) You can't just say it was bad luck that the war in Iraq has turned into a quagmire, and then say it was not wrong to go to war? Going to war is a bit too important matter for that.

Another thing is that you generalize and talk about how would 100 similar invasions have fared. Interesting take. And a lot of the heated (and sometimes very interesting) debates we had on this issue were indeed about the general concept of war to install democracy. I often brought up the image of spreading democratic ideas with B-52s. I'll stick with that one :-) Yet, you cannot use a hypothetical generalizing treatise about "these kinds of wars" as an excuse for saying that the specific case Iraq was neither wrong nor right. The war in Iraq is one case. It's not all cases. And in this particular case the Bush administration botched it. And we're all gonna be paying a small part of the price. Consensus in the war on terrorism is dead, and the terrorists have (as you point out) a fine training ground in Iraq. In hindsight it doesn’t really matter if this kind of war could have worked in theory, because in this particular case, it did not work in practice. As much as I love theoretical debates, my position is that practice should trump theory on the case of Iraq.

Andrew X, USA | 2005-12-15 14:41 | Link

Anders -

Nice of you add a posting where virtually all that you wrote has already been answered by those whom you yourself acknowledge you didn't bother to read.

I've already said my piece. Now I'll let Austin Bay say it, someone who has actually put his neck on the line so that this world might be free of yet another monstrous tyranny.

http://www.strategypage.com/onpoint/articles/20051214.asp

With Iraq's latest trip to the polls, the great revolt continues.

It's not a revolt led by generals with tanks or by millenarian terrorists, but a democratic revolution led by Iraqi men and women braving terrorist threats and bombs to vote.

Democratic politics, emerging in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine, are providing an alternative to the afflictions of war, terror and tyranny. That evil trio has dominated Central Asia and the Middle East, spilling blood, sapping economic progress and destroying hope.

....

However, the dark source of the War on Terror lies in the dysfunctional political systems of the Arab Muslim world.

For decades, the Arab street (a violent drag controlled by tyrants, their power enforced by terror) kept Arab reformers in the Arab alley or the Arab jail. The Arab street also has served as a theater for choreographed displays of anger. Addressing the real sources of Arab deprivation and degradation -- autocratic oppression and systemic corruption -- was forbidden. Arab reformers either shut up, went into exile or were assassinated

That's no longer the case. The successful, history-shaping, liberating war in Iraq has begun to "free the street." It isn't free yet. Theo-fascist and Saddamite bombs strike Baghdad every day. Syrian assassins, trying to stop Lebanon's democratic movements, are murdering Lebanese democrats. Reformers know these acts of terror are attempts to "turn back the clock" and return control of "the street" to the dictators.

Despite the violence, Iraqis and Palestinians are creating democratic alternatives. The world's free people need to encourage the Iraqis and Palestinians, not disparage them with defeatist rhetoric and myopic pessimism.

Iraq's and Palestine's victories, now matter how incremental, must be recognized and rewarded.

That's because the democratic revolt's biggest payoffs are at least 10 to 15 years away.

A long haul? Indeed, 15 years is a large chunk of an individual's lifetime. However, in terms of fundamental political and economic reformation, it's no eon.

Peace, the rule of law and steady, honest leadership will make Iraq one of the wealthiest countries in the region. It has water, agriculture, a source of capital (oil) and a population willing to work. Palestine lacks Iraq's natural resources, but Palestinians are aggressive entrepreneurs. Babylon and Bethlehem make Iraq and Palestine prime tourist destinations.

What's in it for the United States? Democratic nations police terror -- they don't promote it. And that amounts to victory in the War on Terror.

'Nuff said.

Anders, Oslo | 2005-12-15 15:57 | Link

Well Andrew. I did apologize for not reading it all (never seems to help does it?). Following that I actually bothered to read your comment. And then scrolled up to see that you had swamped this thread with some silly Lord of the Rings stuff. There might be some interesting stuff in some of the other 7 entries you've made here. But you got it right. I can't be bothered.

You had one great line, which I enjoyed: "Democratic nations police terror". Exactly right. That's the way it should be. Would you say that there were 300 000 policemen who invaded Iraq?

monopticus | 2005-12-15 16:36 | Link

I would disagree that Bush is dishonest. I would rather state it that he 1) put forward the simplest sound bites of concepts which are at best hazy mozaics ( a la intel data) 2) did tend to cherry pick the ones that were strongest.

The average Joe does not understand that Intel is hazy , contradictory and subject to a thousand misinterpretations and personal baises before it ever SEES the president's desk.

I think the abuse thing boils down to a basic lack of leadership (sins of omission not comission) at many levels, in that guidance was purposefully vague, and the happenings on the ground left much to the indivual restraint or saidsm of the perpetrators. "plausible deniability"

I think the "den beste" case for the war, the strongest case there is, was never made public. I'd argue that the admin would have hard time doing so.

That many bad things WILL fall through the cracks because the admin and the GOP in general are not facing intelligent well thought out opposition. They get a free ride because the dems are plain silly.

I believe the MSM has been lazy and arrogant. They think they have some special quartre d'estat oblige cemented in the constitution that provides them rights and privleges unasailable and unquestionable.

I believe that Bush's admin has been as competant as any large beaurocracy could be - which is to say "not very much", but many by which he is compared had the good fortune of not having important things to do. I think Reagan is the exception not the rule about wielding the gov't to do big things. (Ike kept things quiet, so did Ford, Carter was a mess, Bush I was scattered, LBJ was a defense disaster, JFK was around so short the ink was barely dry, Nixon? please)

Andrew X, USA | 2005-12-15 16:52 | Link

Anders -

Heh. One posting equals a "swamp".

Ten car bombs equals a "quagmire".

Yeah, we got it. They're voting for a permanent government today, as we speak, for the first time in Arab history. Ever.

Ever.

That's following the Iraqi Presidential debates that I wrote about above, that you are oblivious to because you did not bother to read it, and I'm guessing a lot of major media did not bother to report on. That's a first for the Arab world as well. Ever. (The debates, not the media behavior, which I also wrote on, which you did not bother to read.)

So the world has changed in the past 24 hours, for the better, for those who have even a passing interest in the spread of representative government to a people formerly ruled by a tyrant are rightfully celebrating that.

But the Euro-Left, and the American hard left, loves tyrants, always has, always will, and can respond to these events with nothing more than mopery, cynicism, and downright fury that the Baathists and Jihadists are being sidelined. Free people governing themselves is boring. It doesn't have that delightful frission of revolutionary violence and terror.

We got that too.

The purple finger tolls for thee.

(BTW, that wasn't my line you mention, it was Austin Bay's, who has served in Iraq and understands the situation better than either one of us.)

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2005-12-15 19:24 | Link

Andrew X wrote: "Yeah, we got it. They're voting for a permanent government today, as we speak, for the first time in Arab history. Ever."

Bullshit.

I could name several examples, but will choose one I find particularily illuminating. In 1972, Lebanon held free - relatively speaking - parliamentary elections.

While the elections were in fact flawed for a number of reasons, the same thing was true for the National Assembly elections in Iraq in January and the same thing will probably be true for todays elections.

Obviously, this does not change the fact that, as an Iraqi I just saw on TV said, this is a major step for Iraq. Todays Iraqis were partying in the streets.

However, few would disagree that there are forces that are more than interested in pushing these elections in the "right" direction. Amongst these are forces who have the means to do so, whether through financial pressure, through playing on tribal loyalties or through scaring people away from the ballots. As another Iraqi said in the same news report; "Yes, there is corruption. Every Iraqi can feel that".

Thus the Iraqi elections do not represent much new, instead they represent something the Arab world has seen before; elections that are free "to a certain degree".

I do not believe that is the Americans fault. In Iraq, it was the Coalition forces that made anything resembling free elections possible.

It is worth remembering that the elections in 1972 were the last elections before civil war broke out in Lebanon. The parliament that had been elected became the "war parliament" and would choose no less than five presidents; none off them - of course - being elected in the official hall of parliament. I do not say that Iraq will turn out in a similar way, however there is a distinct danger that it may.

To avoid this it helps knowing a bit about what went wrong in Lebanon.

I can't say I know much about it, but I do hope that the advisors of both the current Iraqi leadership and the advisors off George W. Bush know better than pretending that what happens in Iraq these days have never happened before. If not, I am afraid that this election can soon become precisely what it has called repeatedly... historical; belonging to the past.

There are many reasons this risk exists, but scandals like Abu Ghraib, which Washington DC will have to take responsibility for regardless of its excuses and regardless of what nationality the journalists first exposing them had, have been counterproductive.

Western support for undemocratic regimes throwing "democratic" elections in other parts of the Muslim world is equally so. They are one off several reasons The United States have not been able to sell their argument that the Iraq war was about promoting democracy to neither the Arab Street nor the Arab Alley.

This is a time to cross fingers, however, and hope that the Iraqi elections is the beginning of a true democracy, and not the end of another attempt.

A discussion regarding what we can do to promote that would be much more interesting than comments about the stupid "Euro-Left". This discussion does, however, demand a certain self-criticism both amongst "Euro-Leftists" and American rightwingers.

Oddly, Bush seems to have more off this talent than Andrew X does. Perhaps he just has better advisors.

mika. | 2005-12-15 19:56 | Link

Øyvind, (Iraqi ex-pat)

You're missing an important point. This isn't about the Iraqi election or bringing democracy to the ME. No one gives a shit about you people. It's about giving that fscked up culture/religion of yours one more chance to get your shit together, or else. It's up to you to decide what you do with it. It's not up to us. It's up to you.

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-12-15 20:14 | Link

Øyvind: But is it still worth keeping it as an ideal? Well, that depends. To continually seek truth should of course be the ideal of any researcher, any journalist, any blogger. But to combine this search for the unattainable objectiveness with pretending to actually have attained objectiveness will fail.

But then you're not really searching for the truth, if you mistakenly think you've found it. Objectivity is not to pretend that you have the truth, but to work towards it, and try to know your distance to it. The difficulty of the last part is often overlooked - no matter how much we know about a subject, our instinct is to think that we know even more than we really do, to always err on the side of arrogance. It's good to know, but in a way better to know how much (or little) you know.

I agree that objectivity is not a practical goal for media, it's difficult, counterintuitive and unprofitable. But I don't think we should lower our standards to a level that is "practical" for the media. At least I'm not willing to for myself. And if we think of objectivity as an honest search for truth, and not as the truth itself, then it's not an utopian goal, just difficult to reach.

Lene: Lets argue about what we could have done better when the job is complete. Internationalism on behalf of freedom is a virtue.

Yes, but we can argue about the war debate itself, and try to learn from that. That's mostly what I'm doing here, I don't know how Iraq is turning out and we may only later be able to accurately assign praise or blame, but I can look back on how I and others discussed the war, and decide that I don't want to repeat the mistakes I made in that.

Perry de Havilland: All news media is biased, the difference is bloggers (usually) admit it.

Oh, but we have just as great egos as the big media. And isn't that much of the problem, arrogance? Also, acknowledging your bias is a step in the right direction, but not very useful unless it is followed by the next step: Trying to overcome it.

Mark: I have engaged in alot of back and forth with my liberal friends on the whole "Bush Lied; People died" claim

That claim is false, I don't believe he did much lying. But he was dishonest. I really recommend that you read the Spinsanity book, or at least go through their archives, (the blog is dead now). The problem is that we think in extremes: Bush is honest, or no he isn't, and we have 20 angry books by loyal partisans to prove it. Then we forget that there are ways to be dishonest without telling lies.

Andrew X: Yes, we all "spin". That is not lying, it is making your case.

Yes, I suppose we all do it. If you apply for a job, you play up all your strengths, and don't mention your weaknesses. If you're accused of having made a costly mistake, you defend yourself, and blame bad luck, or other people. Some are better at this than others. They work hard to make sure everyone they meet know that they're the hero or martyr of their life story, and they succeed. These people are charming, likeable, they talk well, and they rewrite reality almost without thinking about it.

All very human. But do you not have a problem with nation leaders behaving the same way on a massive scale, the best of the best of our charismatics helped in their work by professional propagandists and an army of partisans? Sure we have to expect it, like we expect corruption in the justice system, and bias in the media, but do we also have to defend it, and say that it's "good enough"? Shouldn't we try to fight it instead?

Regarding Bush's competence, I happen to think the naivete of many of his opponents staggers the mind.

How does the incompetence of his opponents make Bush competent?

All that democratizing movement, and weakening of autocracy that we see, in Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Libya, Saudi, etc? Forget it.

Things that happen after each other aren't necessarily linked.

I think I could add to this list every five minutes, but I'll stop now.

Okay. Now I want you to make a list of reasons why the war might have been a bad idea.

James of England: I wish that the crazy arguments were just those made my the insignificant, but the Iraq war approaches trade in the degree that crazy beliefs and incoherent positions *are* the European mainstream.

That's partly true, and my point is not that those crazy views shouldn't be criticized, and that it isn't bad that so many Europeans have them. My point is that when we focus on the wackoes, we risk overlooking the sane people who also disagree with us, and so we won't hear their arguments. Maybe they're weak arguments, but then maybe they're good arguments, and we'll never hear them. How can you know that your views are solid, when you've only tested them against followers of Michael Moore? Anyone can do that, it's not a challenge. That's like boasting you have the world's most powerful army .. and then proving it by invading Canada. Okay, so you got the Canadians, and maybe that was a good thing, but it doesn't tell us much about the abilities of your army.

It's much harder to be a good lier when you're high, sleep deprived, and in pain.

It's also harder not to tell your investigators what they want to hear, even though you'll have to make it up. But practical issues aside, torture is wrong because it will happen to innocent people. That also applies to indeterminate detention. If you haven't yet been convicted in an independent court, there is no way to be confident that you're guilty, and so we have to set the standard of treatment by the assumption that you're innocent.

Why do you think we're losing?

I don't think you're losing. But I'm not confident that Iraq will hold up when you leave. Maybe it will, and maybe it won't, and as you say that's how we'll know if it was all worth it.

judith l. miley: It is unfortunate that your resolve has dissolved.

It's not a matter of resolve. I'm not suffering anything here, I don't have family or friends in Iraq, and I'm not there myself. To me this is a question of truth. The arguments I used to support the war were either good or bad, bravery and "resolve" had nothing to do with it, and while they're admirable qualities they can be taken too far, if they get in the way of an accurate understanding of the situation. First you analyze, then you place your bets. Pretending that the world looks differently because you want it to has nothing to do with resolve, that's like being on the battlefield and thinking you're invulnerable to bullets.

lucklucky: No it wasnt. It was the WMD, that is much more than Nukes.

Only in the sense that that was the word they used. But whenever Bush said "weapons of mass destruction", his listeners thought "nuclear weapons". Chemical and biological weapons are horrible, but that's all they are. Nuclear weapons make you untouchable, they guarantee that any sane country will do just about anything to avoid a direct conflict with you.

Shannon Love: Nobody expected that Saddam would be able to produce nuclear weapons of any kind in any time frames of less than a decade and only then without sanctions

Then I'm certainly a fool for having gotten that impression.

If you thought "nukes" every time Bush said WMD's then that is not Bush's fault. Its yours for not researching the technical issues involved.

It certainly is. I'll try to pay closer attention the next time.

Anders: We had bad luck? Well, so did Iraqi civilians who had war brought to their country and have been killed in thousands for bogus reasons.

If Iraq is able to achieve stability, then I'll count the Iraqi people lucky. They would not have been able to rid themselves of Saddam Hussein as quickly on their own, and he was a vastly more efficient and capricious killer than the Americans have been. It's not even comparable.

The reason I talk about luck is that luck is a factor in everything we do. Nothing is given, big historical events no more than anything else. Let us imagine that there was a 99% chance of Iraq having become stable and peaceful by now. Success would have been more than probable enough to justify an invasion, and yet it might still have gone wrong. So it's not enough to look at how it went. We have to consider the possibility that everything that could have been expected to ensure success was done, and that we were simply unlucky.

The war in Iraq is one case. It's not all cases.

If we look backwards, yes. Looking forwards, Iraq is a million possibilities, and possibilities were the basis we had for making our choices in 2003. They're all we have.

Andrew X, USA | 2005-12-15 20:22 | Link

Oyvind -

Good stuff. Makin' me think. That's why we're here.

Lebabon, 1972 - Lebanon existed under the National Pact, namely that power and top positions (President and Prime Minister, etc) were to be apportioned between Christian, Shia, and Sunni at ratios set ahead of time. The leaders were elected by prlimentarians, not the general population as we see in Iraq today.

http://www.ghazi.de/governm.html#nation

Still, previous to Iraq of late, yes, these were the closest the Arab world has had to free elections, and Lebanon has always been seen as the most cosmopolitan Arab nation, no coinicidence.

RE:"However, few would disagree that there are forces that are more than interested in pushing these elections in the "right" direction." --

When is this NOT true in an election? The question is, are they cheating or lawbreaking in doing so? That remains to be seen, but flaws and problems nonwithstanding (Florida, Germany recently, etc.), the very fact of doing so in an EXPECTATION that it will be free and fair, that the people are ENTITLED to that and within their rights to demand it, is new and enormously powerful to the entire Arab world, and I think we are in agreement there.

Whether we agree that it is worth fighting for is a different question.

RE:"Thus the Iraqi elections do not represent much new, instead they represent something the Arab world has seen before; elections that are free "to a certain degree"."

We all know strongman rule is the way of the world in the Arab world, and in it's primary nations, Egypt, Syrai, Iraq, Saudi, and beyond. It is breaking that reality that this war is about. I could argue it was from the start, but it certainly is that right now.

RE: Abu Ghraib

History will record that the US Army was well into investigating and charging people for Abu Ghraib three months before the story broke. Since, the President has accepted responsibiltiy, court martials have been convened, and the legal process proceeds publicly. You write as though none of that is true.

As I have said, that was a terrible and inexcusable thing, but only small part of a picture well-placed media critics of the war used to bludgeon Mr. Bush and the Army over, while ignoring a host of sacrifices being made by US soldiers to build and secure the economy and infrastructure of Iraq. That latter story is, I guess, just boring or something, and flat out not being told. But today's events, which you agree are a good start, would NOT have happened at all without those terribly ignored sacrifices.

Note if you will, the extraordinary statistics compiled by the Brookings Institution, no conservative think tank by any stretch. Many but not all support my analysis, but look at them and make your own conclusions. It's an extradrdinary document. Thanks to Rupert, up there.

http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

To wrap up, "a discussion regarding what we can do to promote real democracy in Iraq" would be welcome, but my very first post here (12-14:05.02)
mentioned the number of realities that the US and the world would HAVE to deal with had there been NO Operation Iraqi Freedom, and primary among those is the fact that democratic forces made virtually NO progress whatsoever in the 20 years prior to 2003. D'ya think the fact that multi-billionaire dictatorial strongmen who would use murder and terror to rabidly stamp out any hint of it, in their own countries and other Arab states as well, had anything to do with that?

In a nutshell, nothing was going to change as long as Saddam sat on his throne of skulls, and changing the dynamics of a corrupt and terrorism fostering Middle East ("draining the swamps") is what the Bush administration said this war was about within a week of 9/11. That has never changed.

What others say about their reasons has changed all over the map. But for them, for all of us really, it's just talk in the end.

Today, freedom has made a big step. That is cause for rejoicing.

Andrew X< USA | 2005-12-15 20:44 | Link

Bjorn -

RE: "Spin" We are arguing the validity and reasoning of the war. It is just like a case in court. If Bush is "spinning", so to are his opponents, so the opposition is just as invalid. I don't buy the premise of "spinning on a massive scale". I simply believe that what was said by politicians and Intel people in 1990-2000, was believed by them then, and significant counter-data came to light in 2000-2003. Meanwhile, 9/11 changed radically the entire way the US looked at the Middle East and it's dangers. It would have been insane for it not to.

It is up to all of us to voraciously collect whatever info we can on this, and judge accordingly. What we write here today is part of that, and God bless you, Bjorn, for providing one of mnay forums. The 2004 election was largely on the one single question of Iraq. We have the answer, it's about 53% for Bush, 47% against.

What we see since has to do with just how determined we are as a nation to see it through, and how naive we may or may not be regarding what success will require.

When I compare "Bush's competence to his opponents", the point is, if Joe Smith is on trial, and his prosecution is incompetent... and his defense is incompetent.... um, just who IS competent around here? Perhaps the observers (i.e. journalists) making the judgement are the only competent ones? That's a smidge self-serving.

If the opposition to an "incompetent" policy are themselves demonstrably "incompetent", then maybe the original premise of incompetence deserves a second look. That's my point. If there is some "middle ground" between invading and not invading that is different from the failed middle ground of 1991-2000 (shredded sanctions, starving children, Saddam still firmly in charge, etc), I sure can't see it, nor have I hear it from anyone else.

Regarding the democratizing of the middle east (which you don't dispute) "not necessarily linked" to the fall of Saddam, yes, I not the "necessarily" caveat. Look at it as an enginneer. You have a line. How about one of the UN's "freedom index". That line, for the Arab world, is virtually flat, or on a slight down or up tilt, just slight, for thirty years.

Suddenly, there is a radical shift in that line. Any engineer is going to say, "something happened here. Somehting had to. This isn't just a random shift". What is the most significant event in the Arab world since 2000? More to the point, what is the SECOND most significant event (maybe untrelated to Iraq) that could cause these changes? Anything? Anyone? I'd like to hear some that cannot be traced back to the toppling of Saddam as a major factor.

"Okay. Now I want you to make a list of reasons why the war might have been a bad idea."

THAT is a fantastic request. I've written a lot, so let me sit on that for a moment. I could list things said by others that I have an answer to, but I've already said a lot of that here, and elsewhere. Let me ponder. I might ask opponents of the war to do the opposite as well.

(this is fun)

Andrew X, USA | 2005-12-15 20:46 | Link

Ahhhh!!!

Correction to above,

I simply believe that what was said by politicians and Intel people in 1990-2000, was believed by them then, and ** NO ** significant counter-data came to light in 2000-2003.

Completely changes the meaning of the sentence. D'oh!

BjørnE | 2005-12-16 09:45 | Link

Björn,

First, I think you can sleep well after the elections. At least the people seemed enthused.

Second, all efforts should be focused on assisting Iraq in building a solid democracy including all the services neccessary for a modern civilized country. The success of this democratic experience will rest upon getting all community services in place and running.
(Norways one man support is just absurd).

The main lesson from this war, how to fight terrorists, is what the western culture should embrace and they should train their security forces accordingly.

Sandy P | 2005-12-17 01:54 | Link

--by implying a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11,--

food for thought, somewhat recent Instapundit posting.

IIRC, over 70-75% on 9/11 or 9/12 thought Saddam had a part in it.

Could it be because of 8 years of Bubba and what he said???? This didn't come out of the blue sky, there was history there.

Sandy P | 2005-12-17 02:06 | Link

-- Humvv unable to cope with IEDs and no flexibility and solution --

Humvees weren't designed for that, that's why they weren't able to cope w/them, lucky.

What they're doing now is hiding the IEDs in look-alikecinderblocks which is a common sight on the side of the road. We're only getting about 40% of them.

Chris Halverson, Saffron Walden | 2005-12-17 21:30 | Link

We've been dealing with the Iraq war over at The Foundation, and there is one really good article (and some other not half bad, but obviously ideological) there about the justification for the Iraq war, it deals with facts only, not ideological stuff, its interesting, especially comparing it to the more partisan essays found there.
Here is a link for that Essay.
http://thefoundationofknowlege.blogspot.com/2005/12/another-essay.html
Peace,
Chris

Sandy P | 2005-12-17 23:48 | Link

OH, Bjorn...

--All that democratizing movement, and weakening of autocracy that we see, in Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Libya, Saudi, etc? Forget it.

Things that happen after each other aren't necessarily linked. ----

Via Instapundit:

http://freedomforegyptians.blogspot.com/2005/12/i-cried-when-i-saw-this-picture.html

The US liberated Iraq and heralded freedom and democracy in the entire Middle East. Before March 2003, there were no popular movements in Egypt like “Kefaya”, Doctors for change”, “Writers for change”, “Journalists for Change” and “Children for Change”…etc. I had never heard of one single demonstration in any street before Iraq. In Lebanon, Syria was manipulating the Lebanese and taking all their income. Now, the Lebanese people are determined to win their freedom and independency. In Saudi Arabia, who could have ever believed that women would go to vote as in Jeddah? In all Gulf countries, at least now there is a female minister or member of parliament at countries where women’s place was their home regardless of their education."

--http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/george-bush-gains-fans-in-unexpected.html--

------

They're going to do what they think is just enough to get US off their backs, but the genie is starting to come out of the bottle.

Same w/the Chicoms.

Sandy P | 2005-12-19 03:00 | Link

Also via Instapundit:

STRATEGYPAGE on the Iraqi elections:

This relentless progress of democracy is causing quite a commotion throughout the Arab world. While it is fashionable to denounce the American presence in Iraq, and what the Americans were doing, the Arab language buzz on the net is going in unexpected directions. Because of al Jazeera and the Internet, young Arabs everywhere are not only able to observe what it happening in Iraq, but to discuss it with young Iraqis. These discussions are not noted much in the West, because they generally take place in Arabic, and often via email and listservs. The non-Iraqi Arabs are impressed at the proliferation of media in Iraq, and the eagerness of Iraqis to vote, and make democracy work. The economic growth in Iraq is admired, and is already attracting entrepreneurs from other Arab countries. The more cynical non-Iraqis believe that it will all come to nothing, and that another Saddam will eventually emerge and shut down all this democratic nonsense, as is the case in most of the Arab world. But the pessimists appear to be in the minority. Arabs are tired of dictators, economic stagnation, the corruption and living in a police state. Moreover, there’s a nimble quality in Arab thinking that allows them to simultaneously blame the Americans for going into Iraq, and praising the result.

Read the whole thing.
----
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iraq/articles/20051218.aspx

kim sook-im | 2005-12-20 16:23 | Link

'
.....France does not like America. Neither, for that matter, does Germany and several other European nations. All those lovely headlines about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s recent visit, suggesting that Europeans will forgive us for killing their Arab friends in response to 9-11, are the foolish notion of journalists who haven’t a clue that Europe has been taken over by Arabs in particular and Muslims in general.......'

.
......many Americans still want to believe that Islamists, the extreme Muslims characterized by the Taliban and al Qaeda, are just a minority of greater Islam and, once isolated and destroyed, we will be embraced by those to whom we have brought freedom and democracy is dreaming. Recent history, however, bears witness to the fact that Arab Muslims kill each other with impunity to insure Jihad succeeds. Why would we ever think they would not want to continue to kill us as well? .......'

read on >>>>>>>

http://www.annaqed.com/english/politics/call_it_eurabia_now_alan_caruba.html

and 'everything you wanted to know about Islam and how all these discussions in this blog can be seen in the proper perspective without all the obfuscation that purported centrists and radical and moderate european leftists would like to offer us in their attempts to 'explain' away Islam's actions. READ ON --->

http://www.islamundressed.com/#_Toc113793227

Gracias,

Sister Ayesha N. Kim

Pekka Karvonen, Kotka | 2005-12-22 00:09 | Link

It is commendable to change ones mind and if it is done as publickly as the host of this site has done, doubly so. Takes balls, as our American friends call it.

What amazes me the most is the almost total and ever increasing lack of comprehension between average American and European in most crucial issues. Is it that we have taken the different forks on a evolutionary ( or intelligently designed ) road? Is it that taming the man has happened with two different speeds in the respective continents? Here using the stick is getting less and less attractive option as a tool to settle conflicts between the nations.

In closing I also want to point out that the precieved anti Americanism is not necessaryly so. Most of the time the loud protests are just expressions of profound disappointment in what could have been and in what have been lost.

Anders, Oslo | 2005-12-22 15:34 | Link

A lot of people have a fascination for spreading democracy in the Greater Middle East. Many people believe this to be vital to American interests. That has to be LONG term interest. Democracy is nice, but the transistion to democracy is not nearly as often nice. I recommend a recent article titled "Can Democracy Stop Terrorism?" in the well-renowned journal "Foreign Affairs" (Vol. 84 No. 5 Sept/Oct). There F. Gregory Gause III writes:

"If Arab governments were democratically elected and more representative of public opinion, they would be more anti-American" (pp.70)

Anyone who cares to read any survey material from the Arab world would have to acknowledge that the Arab street is by and large fiercely anti-American.

Another problem is of course "bogus" elections. Saddam had a few. And there was something called an election to install the fantastic new Iranian President. Yet, can we be sure that if elections were more fair in Iran would Ahmadinejad not have been elected....? I'm not sure about that. People tend to forget that democracies have the capacity to produce horrible leaders. Democracy is certainly the best form of government, but believing that it is some sort of silver bullet against terrorism is a bit naive.

"There is no reason to believe that a move toward more democracy in Arab states would deflect al Qaeda from its course" (Gause III 2005:70)

Merry Christmas T'Y'all

Geronimo, USA | 2005-12-22 22:52 | Link

Bjorn,

Much of what you wrote is an honest evaluation and look back on the events that lead us into a war with Iraq, and I find we share some common ground. I too was in favor of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. But like many, I did not fully understand the overwhelming financial infrastructure and resources that had long ago been established by a multitude of Islamic jihadist organizations, nor comprehend their capacity to sustain a Jihad. Therefore, my evaluation differs slightly from yours.

First, there appeared to be several possible motivations for entering into this conflict:

1. The fear Saddam Hussein will use nuclear and chemical weapons indiscriminately.
2. A moral obligation to free a repressed Iraqi and Kurdish population under Saddam Hussein.
3. Stabilization of the oil supply.
4. Retaliation for 911.
5. A commitment to defend the Israeli’s.

In response to Item 1: On December 14, 2005 President Bush was finally forced to admit in public that the war in Iraq was caused by "faulty intelligence." Only GWB knows how honest he's been. I still believe he is competent, however now much wiser. Therefore, I’m reluctant to call him a liar. He’s got a tough job with many pulling him in different directions.

In response to Item 2: This could be a valid argument, but Iraq was not posing a threat to the USA or other nations. However, if this argument is justifiable we should also have gone after the repressive Sudanese government long ago.

In response to Item 3: The best way to stabilize the oil market is to start drilling within our own territories where there is an abundant supply. Unfortunately, environmental regulations, partially funded by lobbyist bankrolled by the royal house of Saud remain ever powerful. The belief that crude oil is a fossil fuel is now being challenged by the scientific community, and someday we may find that oil is a bio-product of a continuing biochemical reaction below the earth's surface, which also explains why we continue to find and drill for oil in extreme depths all over the world.

In response to Item 4: The real culprits behind 911 is the vast worldwide financial networks that support the Islamic jihadist. You must understand the Islamic jihadists goals are to destroy the West and bring it forcibly into the Islamic world. Again, the bigger player was Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

In response to Items 5: The roots of the current problem with terrorism in the world today can be traced back to the Jewish terrorism in the 1940's, led by Menachem Begin's Irgun Gang and Yitzhak Shamir's Stern Gang that ultimately forced the British to leave Palestine. Thus, the Israeli State was founded on terrorism. As Jesus said in Matt. 26:52, "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword." Please understand, I align myself with no one in this conflict. President Bush needs to recognize that he cannot fight Arab terrorism while supporting Jewish terrorism. The Bible makes it very clear that our judgments must not be partial. (Ex. 23:1-8; Mal. 2:9; James 2:4) Jews are not God's privileged people. The biblical prophets make that very clear. For a detailed study see the book, "The Struggle for the Birthright," by Steven Jones.

You are correct when you say: “The Americans are not anything like the Baath's, but their actions have served the propaganda of their opponents. That was dumb and counterproductive”. Therefore, it was encouraging to note that on December 15