if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Iraq Tech
by Lee
This is a brilliant fucking point.
Imagine that this kind of massacre happened every day. Imagine a police force that was far too small to even respond to most of them. Imagine this occurring repeatedly for years until the perpetrators and their accomplices became the de facto power-brokers throughout the land. Imagine the shootings also being accompanied by the brutal torture of victims. Imagine families never having finality on whether their own siblings or parents or children have been murdered or not.
This is Iraq today. Now think of the justified rage many feel at the VT campus police chief and university president for misjudgments. Now imagine them presiding over several more massacres in the same place. Ask yourself: why do we not feel as enraged by those responsible for security in Iraq? Are those victims not human beings too? Are they not children and mothers and fathers and sons? Are we not ultimately responsible for them, having destroyed the institutions of order in their country?
This gels nicely with a point I’ve made here a million times. While Saddam was a piece of human vermin, at least the Iraqi people knew the system and how it could be worked. It was corrupt, Saddam was a tyrant, and he did all sorts of nefarious shit. But he also kept order.
There’s a reason I haven’t referred to the “liberation” of Iraq in years. We didn’t liberate anyone except in the most literal of senses. Liberation implies that something bad goes away and you get something good in return. We haven’t given the Iraqi people anything good in return, we’ve turned their country into Virginia Tech. And it happens day after day after day. If you were an average Iraqi, not some radical Muslim but a shopkeeper or other typical merchant, wouldn’t you start to resent the US occupiers in the same way that some people are not starting to resent the campus police for their ineptitude in handling this case?
We invaded Virginia Tech five years ago. These massacres take place every day. And the responsibility for this falls on the feet of one man.
Comments
I think as a concept and an idea it was worth it. I supported it, and as a concept I still support it. But had I known the inept way it would have been fought I would have opposed it.
I think as a concept and an idea it was worth it. I supported it, and as a concept I still support it. But had I known the inept way it would have been fought I would have opposed it.
I have to admit that I completely agree with this.
I thought it was the right thing to do at the time. I still think it was the right thing to do. I wish now, however, we hadn’t done it.
The biggest problem with concepts is that they can rarely survive their implementation.
Why didn’t we just apply the concept to Afganistan and use that as the model for an Islamic democracy in the region?
I guess you can say that as a collective we all voted for it before we voted against it
I think as a concept and an idea it was worth it. I supported it, and as a concept I still support it. But had I known the inept way it would have been fought I would have opposed it.
Completly agree. The question for the future is whether we can ever assume competence in our political leaders.
I must disagree with our host. Compairing Iraq to the VT campus is only accurate if you state that it is the students who are killing other students as well as campus police, while yet more students hide and support the killers. And these same students who are helping the killers are the ones who complain that the campus police are unable to protect them.
"This gels nicely with a point I’ve made here a million times. While Saddam was a piece of human vermin, at least the Iraqi people knew the system and how it could be worked. It was corrupt, Saddam was a tyrant, and he did all sorts of nefarious shit. But he also kept order.” Adolf kept order, so what’s your point?
The biggest problem with concepts is that they can rarely survive their implementation.
yeah like the idea of Gun control.
Invading Iraq was NEVER A GOOD IDEA.
Why was it?
To rid a tyrant?
Look what’s happening in a dozen countries in africa that treat their people worse than Saddam. We don’t give a shit about the Iraqis.
For WMD’S?
There were none, and all bullshit aside, we no closer to a nuclear Armageddon December 29, or 30 or Jan 5 or june 15 or another fucking date. If it was that important, Bush would have done it the day he got in office. If he waited than he could have waited longer. Or could have relied on sanctions, yes, sanctions, that while not perfect, were working.
Oil for food?
Look at the fucking world bank. Corruption is everywhere, and even so, Oil for Food was worth going in?
To jump start the process of Democracy in the region?
I actually think this why they did it… the largest fucking gamble in the history of this country, maybe the planet. And they crapped out.
There was no compelling threat to our national interests to invade another sovereign state. Certainly not in the time frame in which it happened.
Could we have invaded in say, 05?
After getting Afghanistan in shape and routing Al-Queda, establishing a firm and reasonably government in the region and establishing bases from which to work, which would allow the military to operate with the level of troop commitment that Rumsfelt wanted?
Yes.
But even then it would have been a gamble, however perhaps it would not have been such a long shot.
So again why was it a good idea?
So, who doesn’t think that Iraq is a quagmire? (to borrow a oft contested blast from the past from around here)
So again why was it a good idea?
To free a country of innocent people from a brutal dictator and his evil sons. What part of that do you disapprove of?
Wow Lee. I never thought you’d adopt the Michael Moore vision that Iraq was a kite-flying utopia until Bush ruined eveything.
Wow Lee. I never thought you’d adopt the Michael Moore vision that Iraq was a kite-flying utopia until Bush ruined eveything.
I didn’t. But I’m also not so willing to ignore the harsh reality that we made the place a whole lot worse than it was when we got there.
Let me put it this way. You’re an employee at Iraq, Inc. It’s a real dump, they don’t treat their employees very well, abd the CEO is an asshole. Then, one day, US Inc. engages in a hostile takeover and assumes the company. They fire the entire management of Iraq.
“Yes!” think the employees! “I’ve heard great things about working for the US, they’re a great company!”
Then the new boss shows up. Instead of appointing a competent CEO to turn around Iraq’s fortunes, US has appointed a political flunkie with no real experience. The employees at Iraq are pretty pissed off, but they’re still hopeful. Then, as it becomes clear that the new CEO has no idea what he’s doing, Iraq Inc. actually starts doing worse than it did under the old CEO. The employees are restless, wondering what the hell they’re going to do. They complain to the new CEO. Rather than address their concerns, the CEO invites the Bloods and the Crips in to the office. The street gangs regularly beat up the employees, steal their belongings, vandalize things, steal cars, and generally make life miserable.
Now, how would you feel about this corporate takeover? Because I’d be pretty goddamn fucking pissed off, and I sure as hell wouldn’t go kissing US Inc’s ass for “liberating” me from the previous CEO.
So again why was it a good idea?
To free a country of innocent people from a brutal dictator and his evil sons. What part of that do you disapprove of?
I don’t disagree with the fact that Saddam was a brutal sociopath and a his sons worse.
It’s just that it’s not our responsibility to rid the world of Tyrants.
And if it was there are many worse ones to go after than Saddam, unfortunately, for the poor fuckers that live in those countries.
Some dictators would have been easier to get, i.e, in Sub-Saharan Africa, some harder, say North Korea, so why then Iraq?
And if Iraq, whose next? And why? And after that who?
(let’s not forget that in the 2000 debates Bush ridiculed Kerry for overseas entanglements and stated repeatedly, that “being the lone Superpower did not make us the world’s policeman")
The reality is that the invasion was done for a specific geo-political philosophy, to jump start the process of change in the region.
And this Administration gambled every thing on the invasion. And it lost.
So what part do I disapprove of?
The part that sends our kids into harms way to prove a philosophical point, that spends a trillion dollars on idea without thinking the ramifications through, and that ultimately makes the world worse off, the nation less safe and the good reputation and relations with the allies of america in tatters.
Next entry: You Know, For Safety
Previous entry: How Soon We Forget
Given that it has been such an overall monumental failure, and for the reasons you mention, I’m always amazed to hear anyone say “it was worth it”.