TheAgitator.com
What War Looks Like
Sunday, April 25th, 2004Amazing (and — fair warning — extremely graphic) pictures from Iraq.
66 Responses to “What War Looks Like”
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Site Features
- Home
- About Radley Balko
- Publications
- Speaking Info
- Multimedia
- Resume
- Picasa Photos
- Recommendations
- RSS Feed
- Buy Agitator Gear
-
-
$12/month Recurring Donation
$6/month Recurring Donation
- My Amazon wishlist
-
Site Credits
OK… Before any of you get all twisted up about some of these pictures of children that are hurt, please ask yourselves “Did US fire actually cause this, or was it something else?”
I am currently in contact with guys from an Air Ambulance unit in Afganistan. (This guys and girls are from where I live)
About 85% of thier “business” comes from injured Afgani civilians. Everything from apendicitis to some of the more traumantic injuries.
My friend told me of picking up a 9yr old girl with a gunshot wound to the head. The mission was requested by some NGO. It seems she was struck by a bullet coming back down to earth. There had been a wedding celebration or some such, and the locals have a habit of shooting automatic weapons into the air, for lack of fireworks.
Anyway he said a lot of the other major trauma the go out to pick-up comes from civilians stepping on one of the millions of land mines strewn all over the place.
I’m just asking people to keep an open mind, and not to automatically blame the US first. Bullets go both ways, and most of the enemy is not too particular with their aim.
What War Looks Like…Also known as “The Cost of Oil and One Man’s Ego”
I sincerely hope Bush and his minions rot in hell.
Pictures of the War
Via TheAgitator.com comes a link to a site with pictures (many graphic) of the war….
Is “OIL” the catch-all bogeymen that caused all this?
I’m just asking.
I was looking through some postings on DU. And the need for “Oil” is pretty much blamed for every “bad” thing the US has done in the last 40 years.
Did we intervene in Bosnia for “Oil”?, Somolia?, Panama? Afganistan?
Is seems “Oil” is a pretty good catch-all demon. I am sure if it wasn’t around, opponents would find something else.
Maybe the US is interveneing in Colombia to secure it’s supply of fresh-cut flowers?
Anyhoo, would you all just post “I Hate Bush”, and leave it at that.
I somewhat supported the war (my support has dwindled as the best evidence for WMD we found was a bullet-ridden truck, a “chemical labratory”), but I still feel as though pictures like that need to be shown. We’re at war, and people need to realize what war means.
I used to think that this war was justified and I supported that bastard Bush completely. I didn’t think oil was an issue either. But then I did something that many people in this country have trouble (or are incapable of) doing; namely, I took my head out of my ass. This war is absolutely unjustified and it is crystal clear that Bush & Co had ulterior motives. For people who stauchly support this war, but have never served in the armed forces, you should put your money where your mouth is. You wanna think this war is about “freedom and democracy”; great, pick up an M16 and stand a post, otherwise quit talking about how great it is that we’re in Iraq “liberating the Iraqis” or whatever the damn Bush administration wants you to believe.
It’s funny how those who bitch about oil are always the ones who; 1) have a car and drive it all over the place, 2) don’t grow their own food and depend on supermarkets, which in turn depend on big trucks that use oil to ship the food from the farms to the store, 3) fly on commerical airlines which use oil and 4) vote for Democrats and/or Republicans (aka: fascists) who refuse to allow free markets to determine where we should get our oil from.
Talk about having your head in your ass.
“OK… Before any of you get all twisted up about some of these pictures of children that are hurt, please ask yourselves “Did US fire actually cause this, or was it something else?”"
A) Does it really matter?
B) Shooting in the air doesn’t cause the kinds of wounds you see on some of the kids in the pictures. Those aren’t bullet wounds.
War is bad. I served for two years in Soviet Army, just in the time of the beginning of the end of SSSR (87-89), when Azerbajans started fighting Armenians and Chechens – everybody else, and saw a lot of “interesting” stuff during these two years. Although I supported and still support this war. It succeeded in dirving the war out of USA and keeping it overseas. I hope the enemies won’t figure this out as long as possible, and even if they did, they wouldn’t be able to do much about it.
I really enjoy the fact that Marines swat the mujjaheddeen (or whatever is the spelling) on the streets of Baghdad, rather than on the streets of New York.
Sounds pretty fascistic, isn’t it? :-)
Well, so be it.
“I really enjoy the fact that Marines swat the mujjaheddeen (or whatever is the spelling) on the streets of Baghdad, rather than on the streets of New York.”
Yeah. The Russians have been really successful swatting the Chechens in Chechnya, instead of Moscow.
Oh, wait. There *have* been attacks in Moscow.
Now, why are we supposed to think that all the terrorists in the world have moved into Baghdad?
1. Who said Russian have been successfull? Actually, do you know that more chechens live in Siberia than in Chechnia? Do you think they remain outside of the conflict?
2. Of course not all of the terrorists have moved there. But I dare to say that they are kept damn busy outside of USA now. Chechen cause helps this, too, BTW.
3. The fact remains – there were no terror attacks and civil casualties inside USA since 9/11. I believe Iraky war helped this a lot.
The same people who bitch about us being over there for oil are also the same people who give bush shit for high gasoline prices.
I mean, if we are there to take their oil and Iraq is pumping more oil now than when Hussein was in power, shouldn’t the law of supply and demand dictate lower oil prices.
Oh yeah, I forget, Liberals do not understand the law of supply and demand.
Fil writes:
“I really enjoy the fact that Marines swat the mujjaheddeen (or whatever is the spelling) on the streets of Baghdad, rather than on the streets of New York.”
This line of reasoning is often heard in some form or another from the pro-war side, but I think its reasoning is fallacious.
The fact that we fight in Baghdad doesn’t necessarily mean we won’t also have terrorist attacks in New York, which is what the thought seems to express. The two are not mutually exclusive, and there is not a set number of people who want to fight us.
Indeed, as many of us on the libertarian, anti-war side have argued, fighting in Baghdad is likely to actually increase the chances that we will have to “fight in New York” since it may drastically increase the number of people around this small world full of mobile people who wish to do us harm.
In a Karl Vick piece in the Washington Post last week, he quotes an Iraqi man whose 8-year old daughter was accidentally shot and killed by an American soldier. He said something along the lines of “When this war is done, I will go to America and target civilians. An eye for an eye.”
As I said in a previous post, I have no desire to exchange pointless, horrific blows with a billion Muslims around the world. Let’s get US troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible.
Interesting pics…and you should see the photo array of horrors while Saddam was in power. Oh wait, we never saw those photos in the West.
Anyone seen photos from Normandy?
You should see the photos from Gettysburg…
Well I’m off to fill up the tank on the (Insert an SUV Gas Guzzler Here) in the relative safety of (some US State).
I’d like to take the opportunity to thank the men and women over there. I offer my best of prayers to you for a quick and safe trip home.
I don’t know where this is going. Other than the pointing to photos to sensationalize an opinion in a matter such as Iraq is lame. (not directed to Radley)
I’ll stop now.
I don’t think showing these pictures “sensationalizes” the issue. With something so important, as war is, shouldn’t we see them too? A lot of Americans never thought of these consequences when they gave their support for the war. It’s only fair that they can see them to understand the decision they have made. This set of pictures may be biased, but it doesn’t change the fact that they really happened.
Here in an interesting (4 page long) article on ‘Al Qaedaism’ to add to this debate. No vile or inflammatory stuff, just some food for thought.
For some reason the link didn’t come up… here it is:
http://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2536
I was thinking the same thing Carlos said as I was looking at those pictures. Their horrific, but who is to say where those wounds came from? Does anyone realize how staunchly legalistic our military is about whom to fire on and whom not and the procedures that must be taken when someone is killed by our military? I can’t get into this because it makes me boil.
I’ve said it time and again, perception is everything, and if you CHOOSE to perceive in a particular way, then you can make anything justify anything. We all do it, conservative, libertarian, or liberal. It’s just a fact of life.
Thanks Rad for posting those pictures. Sometimes I feel disconnected from what is actually going on over there because we don’t get too see.
Carlos and Ms. Dani do have a valid point — in war pictures, you can never bee 100% certain as to what you’re seeing, since a photo is a captured moment in time devoid of context. Who inflicted the damage caused in a particular picture? Was the injured/killed person a militant, a bystander, or something in between?
It’s hard to know.
But the larger point of these photos still stands. If we assume that the United States military has killed, say, 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians — and I believe that would be a conservative estimate — then it’s reasonable to assume that some of the damage in these photos was caused by our troops. And that disgusts me.
Ms. Dani writes:
“Does anyone realize how staunchly legalistic our military is about whom to fire on and whom not and the procedures that must be taken when someone is killed by our military?”
Well, this is the theory, but I suspect the practice is much different. We’ve done a lot of bombing in Iraq, and while I certainly believe that our military takes care not to inflict intentional civilian casualties, I do not find it hard to believe that 21-year-old U.S. soldiers, frustrated and hot and overextended and wanting to go home and with recent memories of colleagues killed as they watched, would take out their frustrations on civilians who may or may not be innocent.
In short: quagmire.
MattG — now to continue the debate we shelved on the Pat Tillman thread …
Our battle is not with a billion Muslims. What we are fighting is the relatively small fraction of them that consider lethal force as an evangelism tool.
These do have the support (right now) of many others — but not even a majority — in the Muslim world, but that support is primarily based upon two things; intimidation and ignornace.
Decisively defeat the “evangelists”, and the vast majority of their supporters will then act reasonably in their new-found fredom … though a few will persist with emotional responses for a while, like your example.
The alternative — an expanding Dar al-Islam where the evangelists continue to shape perceptions by controlling the flow of information, anyone who attempts to exercise their inalienable rights by dissenting are crushed … and their supporters become even more entrenched in their ignorance, and grow in their hatred for America.
That’s as likely, if not more likely to lead to a billion Muslims arrayed against us as anything we are doing, IMO.
I found this video linked on MetaFilter. Yeah, I know. MetaFilter is a buncha pinkos. I get bored at work, though.
Rich,
I don’t think you really addressed my point that Fil’s “We’re fighting them in Baghdad so we don’t have to fight them in New York” line of argument presents a false choice.
As to the points in your post:
RC writes:
“Our battle is not with a billion Muslims. What we are fighting is the relatively small fraction of them that consider lethal force as an evangelism tool.”
Agreed. We in the West have no battle with the world’s Muslims, and the troublemakers in the Muslim world right now are a fairly small number of people who are, as you write, evangelical Muslims who consider force to be an aaceptable form of persuasion.
RC writes:
“These do have the support (right now) of many others — but not even a majority — in the Muslim world, but that support is primarily based upon two things; intimidation and ignornace.”
Agreed, mostly. Violent fundamentalists certainly do not have the active support of the majority of Muslims. Their ability to garner support is based on intimidation in countries where those who oppose radical Islam are afraid to speak out for fear of violence, yes; and their supporters may also tend to be uneducated. But many of those who sympathize with fundamentalist Islam do so due to seriously-held religious beliefs, and others sympathize as a rallying-around-the-flag measure against what they view as Christian aggression (Russian invasion of Afghanistan, Operation Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom, U.S. support of Israel’s policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians).
RC writes:
“Decisively defeat the “evangelists”, and the vast majority of their supporters will then act reasonably in their new-found fredom … though a few will persist with emotional responses for a while, like your example.”
Agreed. Violent fundamentalist Islam must certainly be defeated if we want world peace. However, I think this victory has to come as primarily an internal struggle of ideas within the Islamic world itself. The pendulum is swinging in the direction of democracy in the Muslim world; it will be gut-wrenching, but in the end, democracy will win there, as it has most other places in the world.
RC writes:
“The alternative — an expanding Dar al-Islam where the evangelists continue to shape perceptions by controlling the flow of information, anyone who attempts to exercise their inalienable rights by dissenting are crushed … and their supporters become even more entrenched in their ignorance, and grow in their hatred for America.
That’s as likely, if not more likely to lead to a billion Muslims arrayed against us as anything we are doing, IMO.”
Here we disagree. Rich, you repeatedly downplay (and sometimes simply ignore) the idea that it’s our interventionist policies in the Muslim world that cause Muslim countries to hate America. Instead, you ascribe Muslim hatred of America to irrationality, fanaticism, and lack of education. I know you’ve defended America’s policies in the Arab World as being in America’s interest, but you’ve stretched American national interest across the globe to make that case.
I also wish you’d address the point that our various military interventions into Muslim countries may be retarding democratic progress in those countries by provoking widespread sympathy for the very anti-American clerics you and I both identify as the enemy.
“I really enjoy the fact that Marines swat the mujjaheddeen (or whatever is the spelling) on the streets of Baghdad, rather than on the streets of New York.
Sounds pretty fascistic, isn’t it? :-)”
No, it sounds pretty imbecilic. Do you also enjoy the fact that our soldiers and Marines are dying for our President’s stupidity? Prick.
I don’t care if there weren’t any Iraqi civilians harmed in this war (but that’s obviously not the case). OUR guys are dying because of some monkey in the White House who is using the men of our military to settle a personal vendetta against Saddam.
Your comment that the military is fighting terrorists in Baghdad so we don’t have to fight them here in the US bleeds idiocy so profusely we have to invent a new term to describe it. As I said, if you want to support this ridiculous war, pick up a weapon and join our fine Marines on the front lines. Otherwise, quit spouting such ill-reasoned nonsense about something you clearly know nothing about.
“Prick.”
“Your comment that the military is fighting terrorists in Baghdad so we don’t have to fight them here in the US bleeds idiocy so profusely we have to invent a new term to describe it. As I said, if you want to support this ridiculous war, pick up a weapon and join our fine Marines on the front lines. Otherwise, quit spouting such ill-reasoned nonsense about something you clearly know nothing about.”
Well, I have to admit that name-calling and Bush-hating do a strong case make.
Have you ever heard of a lightning rod? How imbecilic a concept! ATTRACTING lightning? How utterly fascist!
Well jizzles, I don’t want to get in the middle of a flame war, but the “lightning rod” idea — which went by the name “operation flypaper” last year when it was first proposed — isn’t convincing in this case.
If precisely one bolt of lightning is coming, and I own a house, a lightning rod is obviously a great investment, since it’ll attract that bolt with no damage done.
There’s massive damage done with the “operation flypaper” idea in the form of hundreds of dead and thousands of wounded U.S. soldiers. In addition, the soldiers’ presence and actions itself draws more lightning. It’s this blowback — and the retardation of the process of democratization in the Muslim world — that the pro-war side hasn’t yet taken on.
Rich Casebolt or Ms. Dani, the floor is yours.
“There’s massive damage done with the “operation flypaper” idea in the form of hundreds of dead and thousands of wounded U.S. soldiers. In addition, the soldiers’ presence and actions itself draws more lightning. It’s this blowback — and the retardation of the process of democratization in the Muslim world — that the pro-war side hasn’t yet taken on.”
I find the term “pro-war” to be completely inappropriate and indicative of a notion that we are somehow the instigators, that we are in control–that we have obsession with and strongly advocate war for the sake of war. You lump an array of complicated dimensions into a binary mentality that dictates either “creating war” or “preserving peace”.
The fact is that such things cannot be controlled. We *are* at war. It is how (and whether) we choose to fight that is at stake. It is obvious that our enemies are not at all interested in negotiation or peace preservation. Certainly Saddam’s regime was hardly concerned with anything more than securing its own survival through whatever means could be snuck under the radar of the hapless UN who are defeated by simply ejecting inspection teams from the country.
War has costs. There will be casualties. To shrink in the face of these possibilities, to retreat to a utopian peace-love-and solidarity of all nations mentality while touting it as the triumph of the human spirit is total fantasy.
“If precisely one bolt of lightning is coming, and I own a house, a lightning rod is obviously a great investment, since it’ll attract that bolt with no damage done.”
You seem to come at this argument with an all-or-nothing mentality. No damage = great! Some damage still might happen = bad idea!
Well jizzles, by “pro-war” all I meant was “in favor of the military operation known as ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’”.
We did in fact have a choice as to whether to invade and occupy Iraq. I understand that war has casualties and that casualties in and of themselves do not illegitimize a war’s rationale. What I’m looking for from the pro-war (or whatever you want to call it) side is an argument against my point that our intervention in Iraq both makes us less safe from terrorism and retards the process of democratization in the Muslim world. If you’d care to take a stab at that, I’m listening.
Just wanted to add one more thing.
Of course the reply is “well, when the benefits out weigh the costs, then it is justified.”
Sure. Except that it is just frankly impossible to quantify the strategic benefits of any action before it is done–the expanding repercussions as the rest of the world adapts to the new strategic position are absolutely impossible to predict. To be able to quantify the strategic value of an action, one must be clairvoyant, omniscient, and see all possible scenarios far into the future.
No one has any respect for the complexity of the situation. A few people try to reason through a chain of implications based on their perceptions of people and nations that are vastly more complicated than their simplified ideals. The truth is that there are millions of actors involved with thousands of different roles–all with psychology as deeply complex as yourself. Do you think they can bring what you will do? How could you expect to predict what even ONE of those people who do?
Have some humility. No one knows what will happen next.
“We did in fact have a choice as to whether to invade and occupy Iraq. I understand that war has casualties and that casualties in and of themselves do not illegitimize a war’s rationale. What I’m looking for from the pro-war (or whatever you want to call it) side is an argument against my point that our intervention in Iraq both makes us less safe from terrorism and retards the process of democratization in the Muslim world. If you’d care to take a stab at that, I’m listening.”
Sure, I’ll take a stab. But I’ll preface it by saying that this is only my perception of the situation and will try to refrain concluding that I even remotely what the hell I am talking about.
1. Perhaps it does make it more susceptible to terrorist attacks. But the situation is hardly as one dimensional as the probability that a terrorist attack will happen on American soil. Trying always to minimize the probability of getting attacked is hardly a winning strategy. Such tactics leave us at a severe strategic disadvantage–they empower our enemies. They gather strength and develop sophisticated attacks. Defense will not win. In my opinion, offense is the only strategic win. In our situation, I believe it is the best option. That does expose us to greater risk. Fighting ALWAYS has risk.
The cold war was all about escalating risk–to absurd levels. Levels unfathomably high–levels that make warfare suicide, that making winning impossible. That’s how the cold war was won.
I honestly believe that risks are worth taking. When put in proper perspective, they are far far less than those we faced in the cold war. Thankfully we are not planning for high-stakes, smoking continent odds. I believe that if we can win such a war as the cold war, that we can win this. And NO, I do not believe that lower risk is necessarily a winning strategy.
2. I don’t believe that the overthrow of two brutal regimes in the middle east is a retardation of the process of democracy. I see it as a major jumpstart. In Afghanistan, women can attend school, people can play sports. The economic conditions in Afghanistan are improving steadily. Infrastructure is being rebuilt. Investments are being made. Life is improving. And the focus of the world on it brings exuberance, encouragement, and fertilizer. Afghanistan is by far the better for what has happened.
And I believe that it too will be so in Iraq. There is turmoil. There is violence, and pain, and death. But there are schools. There is food. The infrastructure is being rebuilt. And there, too, the focus of the world is concentrated, seeing horrors, but nudging progress, and pushing for freedom.
Islamic states surrounding these areas have begun to see the danger posed by a free Iraq. They have started to listen to the cries for more freedom in their own countries.
By far the region is better for what has happened. If you care to look, that is.
Matthew Peck,
Saw the video. NICE!
But to those whoe say “How terrible”, wasn’t it you who were complaining about not doing anything about looting.
What would you prefer, that we shot them?
(And please don’t say “I wish we wern’t there”) That goes without saying.
Jizzles,
Have you ever heard of verbal diarrhea?
Granted, “name-calling and bush-hating” do not make a strong case, but neither does it attentuate the arguments against this war. If you bought the Bush administration’s argument that Iraq possessed WMD (supported with evidence that many in Washington claim to be inconclusive at best) and hence posed an immiment threat to the U.S. (the original basis for this war), then I can’t fathom why the mounting evidence that this war was wrong from the get go isn’t very convincing to you.
I’m not trying create a false dichotomy of “war” or “peace.” War is unfortunately necessary and I completely understand that. But when it is necessary, the arguments for it must be compelling and consistent, two things that are severely lacking in this case.
Hindsight is 20/20, and even though we are already in Iraq and must finish what we started, at the very least people should understand the costly failures of this administration, instead of continuing to attack those who present evidence of their utter stupidity and bias. The only reason the administration itself doesn’t do this is because of something called “escalation of committment.”
Great looting video. And how can anyone say that reporters are not left wing propaganda mongers. This guy feels sad for the looters, oh poor guy lost his taxi, if that was even the case, all because he was looting.
Looters are working against peace and progress, you risk your car if you want to loot with it. Pretty simple.
As for half the idiotic posts, AR, do you bother with facts or did you just decide that this is Bush’s war for his own reasons. Sure, he started a war to avenge his father!! Oh no, watch out for that space ship that is going to do an anal probe on you.
Stop pretending you actually care about our soldiers dying, you don’t, you just want to use it as ammunition for your innane accusations. That would be like me saying I actually feel sorry for the Spanish the next time a terrorists blows up their people.
All you pro UN people, how do you feel knowing that your argument that we needed UN approval is completely meaningless because they were busy getting bribes from Iraq through the oil for food program? Or do you think that the UN would have supported us if our cause was just, regardless of their being paid off?
“Stop pretending you actually care about our soldiers dying, you don’t, you just want to use it as ammunition for your innane accusations.”
Pete, who the fuck are you to question my motives? I DO care about the soliders. You wanna why you cowardly piece of shit? I plan on actually serving my country as an officer in the Marines. But obviously you wouldn’t have known that shitbrick.
“Granted, “name-calling and bush-hating” do not make a strong case, but neither does it attentuate the arguments against this war. If you bought the Bush administration’s argument that Iraq possessed WMD (supported with evidence that many in Washington claim to be inconclusive at best) and hence posed an immiment threat to the U.S. (the original basis for this war), then I can’t fathom why the mounting evidence that this war was wrong from the get go isn’t very convincing to you.”
Where the hell ARE they then? We certainly didn’t imagine those chemical weapons that killed off 5,000 Kurds. And after the first Gulf War, you know, when Iraq ADMITTED to having large quantities of chemical and biological weapons and the facilities to produce them–giving numbers, showing documents, facilities, storage areas, did Iraq just make it up so that they could entertain the UN’s crack weapons inspectors for a cup of tea? In 1999, the UN CONCLUDED that Iraq had the capability to produce 25,000 liters of ANTHRAX, 38,000 liters of botulinum, and 500 tons of Sarin, in addition to the more than 29,000 munitions that Saddam did not account for. This is not the fabrication of the CIA, but the UN’s own conclusion.
Why exactly would they expel weapons inspectors from their country REPEATEDLY and later claim to have “secretly” destroyed the weapons?
Do you think they ACCIDENTALLY complied with the UN’s demands of dismantling the weapons THEY ADMITTED TO HAVING EARLIER without telling anyone and then ACCIDENTALLY suffered under over a decade of economic sanctions because they somehow lost the proof that the weapons were destroyed?
If you want to look at EVIDENCE, or facts, or REALITY, you might want to ask yourself a couple of hard questions.
Just where the in the HELL did THOSE WEAPONS GO?
Let me give you MY opinion.
THEY’RE NOT THERE! Yeah. THOSE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ARE NOT THERE. Yeah. Exactly what I just said.
Oh, I guess that means they don’t exist! Or never existed! Simple. And probably wrong.
Let me give you an example of how little we can know about what is going on in a country, and then you can decide whether you think the following scenario is possible.
When Libya declared that they would disarm fully of weapons of mass destruction following the Iraq war, they stated EXPLICITLY that it was due directly to what happened in Iraq. Revolutionary Leader Col. Muammar Abu Minyar al-Qadhafi stated EXPLICITLY that he did not want what happened to Iraq to happen to his country.
But that’s not the interesting part of the story. The interesting part of the story is that LIBYA had a COVERT NUCLEAR WEAPONS program. They frankly admitted it! And there were frighteningly far along; very close to a usable nuke. And a lot of people said “whew” and they went along with their business. But the fact is that our intelligence on Libya did not even know they were working on nuclear weapons! It was a total shock. Libya also admitted to diplomatic ties to North Korea, and the two countries were apparently exchanging quite a bit of information about how to build nukes.
Now, back to Iraq. Remember the uranium mining fiasco? Those 12 words in Bush’s speech? The ones that started everyone on this whole “conspiracy theory” kick? It’s true that the document in question turned out to be a forgery. No, probably Iraq wasn’t seeking uranium–in Nigeria. Who would forge a document that Iraq was seeking uranium in Nigeria? I doubt the CIA or British intelligence would spend huge amounts of manpower to debunk their own forgery. So who forged it?
It turns out that Libya was probably getting its uranium from the Congo. Apparently they disclosed the location of an active uranium mine with 6,000 workers. Of course we didn’t know about it, because our intelligence was focused on Nigeria investigating documents that later turned out to be fake.
What did UN weapons inspectors find in Iraq? Not shit. Where did it go?
I think it’s highly likely that Iraq exported its chemical weapons to secret ally such as Libya. That’s not unthinkable–25,000 liters of anything would fit onto a few semi-tractor trailers. It small quantities, it could be shipped undetected to a safehouse. Why hide it in your own country?
THAT’s why Saddam couldn’t produce proof he destroyed the weapons, and why we can’t find them now. They aren’t there!
You also might want to ask yourself what 400 unemployed nuclear scientists do with their spare time. They work for Libya.
But of course, let’s just focus on the “fact” that we can’t find the weapons in Iraq. That means we were unjustified! Right?
Whoa, whoa! I thought this kind of the hotheads can be met only in russian USENET and FIDO groups. :-)
My point of view is simple – I got my share of shit and blood when I was 18. Now I’m a respectable family man, and only very serious problems may swing me to change the lifestyle so drastically as, for example, enlist. War in Iraq certainly is not one of such problems. There are plenty of 18 years old people that are willing to do so. This is their job, they are paid for it, and paid well (when I served in SA, I’ve was paid about a dollar per month and smoked sigarettes that costed 1 cent per pack, but this is beside the point).
Iraky war allowed CIs to do theyr job, do it well (all the world cried about how American GIs suck, how they cannot live without baby wipes, but it appears to by quite different now) and not being afraid to kill theyr fellow citizens. Would you prefer them to try smoking the turbaned gangs out of the holes in Trenton, NJ, or in Brookly, NY? The situation was very close to it.
Don’t forget, we didn’t choose to start the war. I remember, America had much lesser reasons for the wars before, than bombing of its embassies, bombing its war ships, bombing its tallest building, killing 3000 of its citizens (not even military ones).
So, I remain the supporter of the current way of the conducting our current war. Surely, one may argue, perhaps, better decision would have been to invade Saudy Arabia instead…
Jizzles,
Let’s set aside the issue of WMD for a moment. The administration’s conclusion was that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States. Their driving premise was that he possessed WMD. Even assuming that their premise was true (for sake of argument), their conclusion was still categorically false.
I will refer you to a wonderful article written in Foreign Policy Magazine, called “An Unncessary War” by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (Jan/Feb 2003). In it, they detail their argument why Saddam was not an imminent threat. Here is a link to it:
http://www.pushingtheenvelope.net/docs/unnecessaryWar.pdf
Let me know what you think about that.
I would agree that American intelligence screwed up pretty royally during the last decade. That is, probably, because it was trying to be intelligent (in russian language “intelligent” has many meanings, one of them very close to “squeamish”:-).
Now, I think I know what happened to WMD in Iraq. There definitely was something. Part of it has been, probably, shipped abroad, part destroyed, part buried and to be found. But the biggest part existed only in the words of the agents that “worked” on the CIA. They were very proficient at selling the state secrets that never existed. Or existed only on paper. They might have even been selling them to both CIA and Hussein himself. Very familiar situation. I’ve lived a good chunk of my life in such a society (it used to be Russian colony with mostly Muslim population in the Middle Asia, now an independent country). Our intelligence community is bound to make a lot of interesting discoveries about the so-called “Eastern menatlity”. :-)
Hey AR, please post your enlistment papers if it ever happens. Remember, you will be a private not an officer. Also, don’t forget to leave your conspiracy theories at the door cause they won’t fly in the Marines.
As for me, you don’t know the first thing about me. Perhaps I am too old to enlist now. But maybe my best friend is an officer in the Marines and spent six months in Iraq on the front lines. That of course only happened after he had to spend four months in Kuwait in sand storms while the UN held our mission up and he and his comrades lost their preparedness. You’re damb right I am pissed at the UN, they increased the risk that American soldiers would not come back, and they did it out of complete dishonesty.
Maybe when he was done with his tour right after the war I spent two weeks taking him around Europe. Perhaps I have seen hundreds more pictures like these before you even stubled upon them, forwarded directly to me from the lines.
Maybe I got all my friends together here in the US and raised thousands of dollars to buy cigarettes, chewing tabacco, magazines, cigars, socks and other necessities and sent them over to Iraq during the war so that the kids in my friend’s unit who none of us knew and who could not afford to have cartons of cigarettes shipped over would have anything they needed.
And perhaps you did nothing for our troops that you care so much about. From your writing you are too much of an uneducated panzy to join the Marines. Unless of course you actually have graduated college and go in as an officer, then you would make a fantastic fragging candidate.
Jizzles, what a fantastic comment.
Don’t forget, those who have problems with the lack of WMDs want to blame Bush for this, not our intelligence agencies, that have been stripped down for the last decade by Democrats who see no threats to our country. The same Democrats who saw no communist threat, but were happy to cut defense spending as soon as the Soviet Union collapsed.
Those who want to blame Bush for the lack of WMDs should at least have the intellectual honesty to delve deeper into the issue and find the real problem.
Peter,
I really don’t know how to respond to your post. Part of me wants to lash back and accuse you of being the myopic twit that you seem to be. But then, the other part of me just wants to laugh at your asinine comments and let it go. Either way, I really don’t give a damn who your friend is (or isn’t) and what you did (or didn’t do) for his Marines. Good luck to you.
AR, I read the link you posted in its entirety.
The first three pages or so are a misguided and poorly pitched attempt to get into Saddam’s mind and establish that he was no menace. It tries to debunk the belief that Saddam is reckless and untrustworthy (in order to establish a case that he can be contained effectively). Ironically, it either proves an even better case for war (that Saddam is not irrational and that he attacks his neighbors when he is feeling weak) or is so helplessly self-contradictory (he attacks his neighbors when he is weak, yet at the time of the Kuwait invasion he was in command of the fourth largest army on Earth) that it immediately vanishes in a puff of smoke.
It tries to make the case the deterrence was working in Saddam’s situation. Yet it hardly was–look at all the UN resolutions he violated. He consistently defied the international community and refused to offer proof of disarmament.
The article is sprinkled with a few comments that say what Saddam did was bad, but those are but lipservice. It’s obviously written with the intention of convincing the reader that Saddam’s actions weren’t that irrational, dangerous, egotistical, or unjustified.
The section on a nuclear Iraq almost makes it sound like a nuclear Iraq wouldn’t be so bad–it couldn’t really do much, so why bother. But this is the same Saddam who had plans to build a super gun that could fire projectiles into orbit. Saddam was obsessed with big weapons.
With some hand-waving, the author completely dismisses the concept that Saddam might try to work with terrorist organizations. Supposedly Saddam had absolutely ZERO connections with Al Qaeda, according to the author. Now that we have this author’s assertion, I think our intelligence community can rest easy–despite the widely UNPUBLICIZED links that they’ve already found. Those reports are far too boring to read. They have all of these Al-Huwazi-this and El-Jazam-that Mohammad This and Muhammad That names that you just can’t keep straight, and so many different terrorist organizations and money trails, and meetings in various weird-name places–I just can’t keep it straight, so I think I’ll just ignore it. Doesn’t make great news. If it doesn’t say OBL or Saddam or maaaybe Muhammad Atta, it just doesn’t interest a lot of people.
It also tries to reason out a case as to why Saddam would not want to give nuclear weapons to Al Qaeda. Tries and fails.
Thought exercise. You spend 20 years and tens of billions of dollars developing the ultimate weapon, and a large portion of that time you spend hating one country. You could A.) Use the weapon yourself and be annihilated in the counter attack. B.) Tell no one you have it and never use it. C.) Tell everyone you have it and instantly become the least popular guy on the planet. D.) Secretly give it to a shadow organization that can use it against your enemy without you getting blamed, and watch in pleasure while your enemy chases the wrong enemy?
One level up, the article is clearly written based on abstract arguments, over simplification, and authors who are not clear-thinking enough to consider objective arguments but rather argue mostly on thought-experiments with actors that they cannot possibly claim to have any intimate knowledge of (most principally Saddam Hussein). Moreover, it’s littered with colloquialisms that make me think it was written by a twelfth grader.
Jizzles,
Although I completely disagree with you, I appreciate your reading the article and posting your thoughts on it.
AR, in my opinion, the one “costly” failure was the erroneous intelligence, which is not an Administration issue. It is a CIA issue.
But once the POTUS and his team had that info they had to act upon it. And let’s not forget the 12 years leading up to that point and that since 9/11 we realized that we were vulnerable on our own ladn for the first time. Saddam had shot at our planes, kicked out UN inspectors, denied re-entry, and carried on suspiciously for numerous years. We then collected data that pointed to him having weapons. Saddam would not give evidence proving otherwise. What would you have done in that same situation?
Ms. Dani writes:
“AR, in my opinion, the one “costly” failure was the erroneous intelligence, which is not an Administration issue. It is a CIA issue.
But once the POTUS and his team had that info they had to act upon it.”
Ms. Dani, please address the issue of the Wolfowitz/Feith/Shulsky Office of Special Plans, set up in the Pentagon specifically in order to “stovepipe” raw intelligence favorable to the pro-OIF camp directly to the vice president, sidestepping normal intelligence vetting procedures.
This war was planned in the mid-1990′s, and 9/11 and WMD’s were simply the “bureaucratic reasons” for it, as Paul Wolfowitz himself accidentally blurted out in a press conference last year.
I look forward to your thoughts on the OSP.
MattG, I’d be willing to read more about the “stovepiping” if you would provide a link. I’ve only heard snipets and have not been able to read anything in depth. I didn’t have any interest to read about it because the voices that were crying it were the likes of Michael Moore and other screaming liberals.
Ms. Dani,
One area that people have focused on is the intelligence information relating to Iraq. In my opinion, the reliability of intelligence is not the problem, as anyone who understands intelligence knows that it is not a perfect science. However, the problem is the use of that information. If you go into a situation with your conclusion already in place (i.e. Iraq has WMD), then it is very easy to “cherry pick” the intelligence given to support that conclusion. That the administration approached the issue in this manner is not mere speculation (or “conspiracy theory”) as others would like to believe. We have people who have worked with the POTUS to varying degrees (Secretary of Treasury, CIA Director, Richard Clark, etc…) that all believe that the problem was with the administration all along. You simply can’t ignore the volume of evidence that we are seeing and hearing from all these people. Unless you want to argue that there is a “conspiracy” against the President, there is really not much that can be said.
Now, I’m not just attacking Bush for the sake of putting down the President, or to make the Democrats look better. Another problem however, was the failure of President Clinton to deal effectively with the Al Qaeda matter. Read a book called “Dereliction of Duty” by Lt. Col Robert “Buzz” Patterson (ret. Air Force), military aide to Clinton. In it, he discusses how Clinton was a huge threat to national security because of his careless and negligent behavior.
The way I see it, we have two Presidents who have each failed in their duty (one did too little, and one did too much).
In regard to your question, how could Saddam really prove he had no weapons (you can’t prove a negative in this case)? All we’ve really done is give bin Laden (and the terrorists) more ammunition to use against us. We’re playing right into their trap. So what would I have done? I would have spent money to improve security within our border. Beef up our resources so that we can better manage the threat of terrorism. Build coalitions with other nations, share information, etc..; basically, everything short of an outright invasion.
Let’s be honest about 9/11; as horrific as it was, these terrorist bastards did not use WMD (they used wire cutters and hijacked planes) to bring down the towers. This was clearly an internal security failure. Even if the world were completely free of WMD, 9/11 would have happened.
I’m not claiming to be an expert on these issues, but I don’t think it is beyond the comprehension of people who just take time to think about the situation. My 2 cents.
AR, I agree that you cannot prove a negative, but you can make yourself an open-book and open to scrutiny, especially when you are already under suspicion, as a matter of fact you should be even more-so transparent in that situation. If he had just done that, none of this would have happened and I believe that whole-heartedly. I believe that President Bush had our country’s best interest in mind (not oil or his own) when he made the decision to take Saddam out of power.
I appreciate your taking the time to respond.
Peter-Just because someone doesn’t support the war, doesn’t mean that they don’t care about or support the soldiers. I think Iraq is a huge mistake, but talked more than a few people into donating to websites to provide for our troops over there. I plannned on joining the Air Force 6 years ago, but was unable to due to medical reasons. I still would today if I could. I think that how much you value soldier’s lives should be guaged on the siuations that you put them in. Our dead in Afganistan were(are) fighting an enemy that attacked us, and while dangerous, was necessary. Have we gotten a straight answer on why we are in Iraq yet? It seems that when one reason gets shot down, another gets propped up in it’s place. Arbitrarial decision making hardly seems like a good way to show soldiers how much you care. Using your example of helping them out, along with your support, is like breaking someone’s legs and telling everyone its a good thing because you’ver given them crutches.
AR- I thought I was the only one that went on a rampage around here…keep up the good work.
Ms. Dani writes:
“I’d be willing to read more about the “stovepiping” if you would provide a link. I’ve only heard snipets and have not been able to read anything in depth.”
Ms. Dani, if you have not read anything in-depth about the stovepiping of intelligence from the Office of Special Plans directly to Rumsfeld and Cheney, I don’t understand how you can have an informed opinion on the causes of the war in Iraq.
I would suggest reading anything by Sy Hersh in the New Yorker or Josh Marshall in the Washington Monthly. Or, if they’re too liberal for you, read articles by Georgie Anne Geyer, Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, or Pat Buchanan in The American Conservative. Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff have also written well about it in Newsweek.
“Improve security within our border”. “Beef up our resources so that we can better manage the threat of terrorism”.
Sounds very promising. Just how to improve internal security? Make one half of the population to spy on another half? There are 42000 policemen currently in NYC (what, two divisions? or four?). Make it 120000, just like our Forces in Iraq?
Beef up our resources? Give out enough money that we can build skyscrapers faster than terrorists can level them down?
So far I see just good intentions and wishful thinking. It is easy to criticize someone who actually does something. What would be better? Hurl the cruise missiles at some absolutely uninvolved country, like Clinton did? So far I haven’t seen any convincing proof that the Iraq invasion was a mistake.
AR — Saddam had an example to follow on how to prove he had no WMD — the cooperation South Africa exhibited with the international community when it decided to get rid of its nukes.
He chose deception and obfuscation instead.
Rich,
How would you address charges that the decision was made to invade Iraq only days after 9-11-01, and that nothing was going to derail that decision? This charge has been leveled independently by several insiders (Paul O’Neill, Richard Clarke, Karen Kwiatkowski), legitimized by many highly-credible journalists, and jibes with the overall impression I recall pre-war.
Your line of thought seems to be that Saddam could have derailed the war effort; but I find the theory that the decision was a fait accompli far more convincing. Thoughts on that?
I haven’t read anything on the OSP yet MattG, but I’m curious as to why in your opinion did Bush want to go to war with Iraq so badly? What was his motive, IYO?
“This war was planned in the mid-1990′s, and 9/11 and WMD’s were simply the “bureaucratic reasons” for it, as Paul Wolfowitz himself accidentally blurted out in a press conference last year.”
MattG, I don’t want to shock you, but THIS IS WHAT MILITARY PLANNERS ARE THERE FOR. The whole point of having a military think tank that constantly assesses risks, foresees possible scenarios, and prepares for extremely unlikely contingencies that they ASSESS RISK, FORESEE POSSIBLE SCENARIOS, and PREPARE FOR CONTINGENCIES. It would indeed be dereliction of duty for our best military minds to be caught with their pants down when it comes time to act.
The military think tank regularly develops war plans for all types of unlikely scenarios. Some great minds’ sole purpose is to envision as many scenarios as possible and to at least have the outline of the available options. There is so much risk that hedging is vital. They are not only vigilant, but imaginative, and paranoid.
It is their DUTY to JUMP when the Commander in Chief says JUMP, and to have a war plan to make it work–for almost anything that could happen.
You (and I both) would probably be shocked at the war plans on file at the Pentagon. There are probably plans on full-scale invasion for half the countries on the globe. Does that mean our military is obsessed with trying to execute all of them?
Jizzles-
I believe MattG’s point/beef is not with the fact that military planners had a plan for war in Iraq, but rather that the administration decided to put that plan into motion days after 9/11, before we had any idea what the facts were.
Ms. Dani writes:
“I haven’t read anything on the OSP yet MattG, but I’m curious as to why in your opinion did Bush want to go to war with Iraq so badly? What was his motive, IYO?”
This article says it all:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html
As jizzles (gosh, get a new handle, would you? I feel all oogy typing that) points out, the US military has plans drawn up for every possible military conflict. We even had plans for a war with Britain until the 1970s!
What’s different about the Iraq plans is that, well, we actually carried them out. And it wasn’t necessary at all that we did so. As Jacob Weisberg pointed out in a Slate piece, Perle & co. are the kind of strategic thinkers that can be useful to keep on the payroll, but you don’t actually *implement* their crazy ideas. Just look where it’s gotten us…
Slightly off topic here, but I find it rather ironic that the we go around telling other countries to dismantle their WMD programs, yet we have such a huge stockpile ourselves. What’s even more interesting is that the only country to have ever used WMD against another was the U.S. (against Japan in WWII).
Ms. Dani- To address your concern about motive. One can have good intentions, yet still make terrible decisions, and vice versa. If a doctor performs surgery on a patient, and the patient subsequently dies, the doctor need not have had an evil motive. He could have felt that the surgery was necessary, however incompetent that decision may have been. That his motive was good doesn’t preclude a lawsuit from the patient’s family.
My point is, whether Bush’s motive was good/bad, is not relevant to the decision made. No one will ever really know what Bush was thinking (we can only speculate on that), but we CAN discuss his decision w/out even touching upon his motive.
Bush’s motive was relevant in the discussion I was having with MattG. I understand the good motives/bad outcome arrangement.
MattG said, “What’s different about the Iraq plans is that, well, we actually carried them out. And it wasn’t necessary at all that we did so” Wasn’t necessary is your opinion. Prove that it wasn’t necessary. You can’t. Neither could I if I wanted to. Bush had a call to make and he made it. I think it was a smart call you and others don’t. But imagine the possibilities if he hadn’t made that call. Want to err on the side of caution? Not me, not in that situation. Saddam was defiant and dangerous and needed to go. The experience of 9/11 just gave us a violent shove into reality. My opinion of course.
That article MattG posted was a very enlightening. I understand the Bush administration strategy a lot better. Still don’t think its a smart strategy, but I see where they’re coming from.
“Slightly off topic here, but I find it rather ironic that the we go around telling other countries to dismantle their WMD programs, yet we have such a huge stockpile ourselves. What’s even more interesting is that the only country to have ever used WMD against another was the U.S. (against Japan in WWII).”
If you venture off topic, be prepared to back it with facts. Germany used VX gas in WWI. Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran (even conceded by the link you yourself posted yesterday). Not to mention dozens of regional conflicts where nobody really knows what atrocities were committed.
I don’t know, is it worse to kill 10,000 with chemicals than it is to kill 100,000 with bullets?
We tell other countries to dismantle when they have no checks and balances and when they are not willing to be checked and balanced by the international communnuity. We, America, are checked and balanced by Russia, China, France, Germany and Italy.
On this same topic, anybody hear yet that Gadhafi (Libya) is encouraging the entire world to end WMD??? He says that we should all “follow his example and eliminate WMD’s”. Is he putting us on the spot or what?! What a moron! http://www.cnn.com front page
Well Ms. Dani, of course it’s my opinion that the war in Iraq was not necessary. That’s what we’re here for, persuasion via the offering of opinions, and the refinement of our own political views via hearing others with different views.
Ms. Dani- Bush did make a decision…an uninformed and arbitrary one. I don’t blame him for having to make tough decisions, as is the job of president of this country, but all we still have over a year later is a cluster-fu@k. Anyone that put 3 seconds of rational realistic thought into the matter beforehand should have known that our current situation there could happen. There are no WMD’s to be found, and things are a mess. Saddam presented no current threat to the US or the rest of the world, and we still chose to go after him instead of a country such as Syria or Iran. Both are known to at least be experimenting with WMD’s and harbor terrorists. Because of Saddam’s secular govt. maybe? Our foreign policy is getting more like our domestic policy every day…do what you HAVE to…as long as it doesn’t offend anyone. Iraq was just an easier situation that at least a few people would buy into. Maybe one of these days, during the War on Terror, we’ll actually start chipping away at terrorists, instead of just creating more of them.
And how is Gadhafi a moron by asking the world to end WMD’s? Our leaders have pretty much been doing the same thing now for a while…what does that say about them? Maybe someday we’ll lead by example, and dismantle a few hundred of the nukes that we have that we’ll never use. How many do we have..like 10,000? I think we’re a little overboard when we have enough firepower to split the Earth in half.
“Maybe someday we’ll lead by example, and dismantle a few hundred of the nukes that we have that we’ll never use. How many do we have..like 10,000? I think we’re a little overboard when we have enough firepower to split the Earth in half.”
The number is more like 8,000, which is far less than our arsenal at its peak in 1965 (about 32,000). Additionally, the weapons we have now are much less powerful and meant for more precision than raw destructive power. The past three decades of arms limitation treaties have caused to phase out most of our strategic weapons in favor of tactical weapons that were meant for use in warfare against enemy troops and concentrations of weaponry, and not against enemy cities. We do, of course, maintain a battery of strategic missiles spread throughout the country as well as deployed on submarines all over the globe.
This is in comparison to the former USSR which after about 1970, outpaced our production of nuclear weapons, creating far more powerful and less accurate super-bombs and building them in huge quantities. At its peak, USSR had 65,000 warheads, with a combined destructive force more than 5 times ours. More evidence shows that the former USSR was not as vigilant in meeting the terms of the arms treaties, and their arms were far less well protected. In the breakup of the USSR, thousands of warheads fell into the hands of the various seceding bodies. The Ukraine ended up with 2,400 warheads. Beginning almost immediately they started a concerted effort to crack the launch codes and continue to this day. No one has any real idea how many they might have unlocked. Further, dozens, perhaps hundreds of other warheads “fell through the cracks” and no one knows where they might be.
“Split the earth”? Not likely. The total destructive force of all our weapons combined doesn’t match that of an asteroid colliding with the earth, which has happened several times that we have confirmed in Earth’s past. In fact, it’s likely that adding up all of the explosive force of our conventional weapons might approach an appreciable fraction of the destructive capability of our arsenal.