War in Iraq (Gulf War II): March 2003 Archives

In recent history, no world even has highlighted the differnces between the U.S. and Europe, more than the conflict in Iraq.

There is a great essay, by Robert Kagan, on this topic that explains why. This is one of the most lucid rational explanations I have heard. It certainly goes way beyond the analysis presented in the non-print media, the web and to a large degree print media.

This essay begin with this nugget.

"It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world. On the all-important question of power -- the efficacy of power, the morality of power, the desirability of power -- American and European perspectives are diverging. Europe is turning away from power, or to put it a little differently, it is moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation. It is entering a post-historical paradise of peace and relative prosperity, the realization of Kant's "Perpetual Peace." The United States, meanwhile, remains mired in history, exercising power in the anarchic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable and where true security and the defense and promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might. That is why on major strategic and international questions today, Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus: They agree on little and understand one another less and less."

BTW, I belive the U.S. occupies a much more rational world view, IMHO. The Europeans are deluded by not having to defend their own continent. The world system cannot be safegaurded by treaties and commercial obligations, not when large groups or people are more interested in forcibly imposing their religious views on others or righting historical wrongs.

I found the BBC has a great blog for it's field reporters reporting on Iraq. It's great to see this kind of feed, even if they are a little sporadic and light on details. It gives a great sense or impression of what is going on.

The topic of "is the media telling the whole story" comes up frequently at work. Many of my co-workers are not native born U.S. citizens so they have a very different perspective than many U.S. born citizens. Often felling that Indian, or arab media is telling a better story.

Here are my thoughts, in no special order, about the coverage of the war in Iraq.

• Fox News is about as reliable as al-jazeera. Both seem to focus solely on one side of the issue.
• News organizations are about making money. This influences what they cover and how. I hope this is obvious to all.
• News has become info-tainment. The war coverage is no different.
• The "embedded" reporters have a lot of detail, but not enough analysis. They are too close to the ground and the troops to understand what they are part of.
• Truth is the first casualty of war.
• It's too bad that incidents in the U.S. since the U-2 overflights and capture of the U.2. pilot, Gary Powers have caused people to doubt the U.S. government.
• The media is covering the war like a simplified horse race. They have no ability to deal with the complexity of the situation on the ground.
• The U.S. needs to show some of their good intelligence. The photos of the cuban missiles galvanized the U.S.. We need that again.
• I can't wait to see what happens when the U.S. actually finds WMD. Hopefully, it's not in the context of any beligerent using them. I am curious to see how arab views will scramble to defend Saddam with WMD.

You might also want to check out this blog, purporting to be Saddam Hussein's blog. My favorite quote from "Saddam." "I don't know how I am going to explain all this to my insurance company."

I saw this on kuro5hin, I was a naive fool ... I thought it was an interesting look at the reality of the war with Iraq, from the view of someone who was protesting, very actively as a human shield.

I am saddened to see the deaths of U.S. and British Soldiers over the weekend. I applaud them and their comrades in arms for their commitment to duty, honour, and country.

I fear this is only the beginning of fighting in Iraq and it will only get worse. Technologically, we have the edge but we will likely face have many stiff pockets of resistance.. some from the rear positions.

It was reported this weekend that some U.S. troops were ambushed by Iraqi's pretending to surrender. From a strategic point of view this seems like a poor strategy. I mean those same troops will be a lot more cautious next time and it may make them think twice about accepting surrendering troops. Haven't they heard the story of the boy who cried wolf? I don't think those troops will be fooled twice the same way. I suppose it is a bit like the "burning your ships story", making sure surrender is much, much more difficult for other troops.

Check out this story in the NYTimes.

"For most of the troops in the division today, however, war was a long, dusty drive across the desert. Unlike British and marine forces to the east, the Third Division, the main armored force now engaged in the war, moved through isolated terrain and thus avoided any cities and towns.

They encountered only scattered groups of civilians, including shepherds tending camels and sheep and a tractor trailer and an orange truck that dashed across the advancing columns."

Could it be ...

Today, as the Iraq war begins to get really heated it has een reported that CNN has been expelled. The Iraqi regime is complaining that they were reporting falsely about the progress the U.S. and Brits had made crossing the Iraqi border.

It's a real shame. I wa looking forward to seeing Baghdad throughtout the conflict.

I am hooked on watching the war. I am afraid that if I look away something interesting will happen.

I realize that is absurd, as the networks replay every scrap of video 100 times an hour, with full talking head analysis. Still I want to see it.

I still hope and pray this conflict ends quickly for the sake of the Iraqi people.

Did I mention how I don't like re-runs.

The war in Iraq began yesterday.

Bush spoke on television at 10:15 EST, and began with these words.

"My fellow citizens, at this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."

It has begun with the launch of cruise missiles and bomb at a "target of oppourtunity" in or around Bahgdad.

On fact bothers me about this conflict. The constitution of the United States indicates the following is a responsibility of Congress. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning

I wish the Congress had the fortitude to actually do this when we commit troops in such large quantities. Of course conflicts like the Gulf War I, Vietnam, Korea, Grenada, Kosovo, etc. didn't have declarations of war either. I don't understand the rationale that prevents Congress from fulfilling it's constitutional duties.

The President of the United Stated spoke about the war to come in Iraq. He gave Saddam and his sons 48 hours to leave Iraq. Now, he didn't spell out exactly what would happen if they left, I got the distinct impression that we would still proceed into Iraq as planned, but hopefully as invited guests.

Bush did an amirable job spelling out his reasons for war. While I don't think he was entirely truthful, the speech basically laid out th following premise. Iraq signed a peace treaty based on disarmament twelve years ago. They have not disarmed. The crises of the middle east may threaten the U.S. as evidenced by September 11. Therefore, we must go to war to stop the threat in Iraq now, pre-emptively.

On another note, is there anyone who thinks Bush look comfortable giving a speech. I always get the impression he borrowed the jacket and he is giving the speech because he want to get the grade, but would rather be back at the frat house. The speech last night was great for Bush, but still seems stilted and strained.

I have my concerns of course.

I still think that perhaps we are going to war for one of the following reasons.

• We have wanted to take out Saddam for some time and September 11th has given the government enough support to do it now.
• We actually have intellegence that indicates that Iraq is a legitimate threat. (I tend to discount this as there have been no revelations so far, someone would have leaked it by now.)
• We see the potential of instability in Saudi Arabia, and want to have a friendly regime in the area, should the Saudi's be subject to regime change. (This would be U.S. foreign policy taking a long view 20+ years, which would seem an abberation)

Some people particularily in the war protest movement see this war as solely about oil. In a sense they are right. If there were no oil in the middle east, it would have the same mindshare as Africa. Our dependence on oil make the stability of the region on vital national interest.(Of course, if you take this position, you must also concede that French intrasigence is likely due to their existing oil contracts with Iraq.) To say that we are going to war so Amoco or Haliburton can make more money seems to fail Occams Razor. It's just not the simplest answer. However, I would love to live in a world powered by cheap hydrogen. It would pull the financial rug out from a number of middle east thug run governments.

I hope the this war will be over soon. In fact the best scenario to my mind is a coup. If Saddam were deposed an individual or group could take over, invite the U.S. in to prop up their regime, and seriously profit both on dollars and power. It's a win-win situation unless you are Saddam or one of his sons.

Nightmares

I do have the occasional fear about Iraq. Here are some of the scenarios that keep me up at night.

Iraq launches weapons at Israel laced with chemical or dirty nuke payloads, provoking a decisive response from Israel. This type of response could cause us to loose support among Iraq's neighbors and in the worst case cause the conflict to widen.

Iraq uses weapons of mass desctruction against American troops. In the traditional war scenario we escalate our response. What would we do, nuke Tikrit and wipe it off the planet? That again could cause the war to widen. It would certainly shake up the world. Our allies would have a difficult time sticking with us.

Iraq attacks it's own citizens, pretending to be the U.S. and shows video on Al-Jazeera. This would inflame Arab sentiment against us. It could set off serious protests and further threaten security in the middle east.

A prolonged standoff around Baghdad results in enourmous loss of Iraqi civilian life and U.S. military. It becomes another Vietnam. (I doubt this as there is no evidence that Saddam's power is popular as seems to have been the case in Vietnam.)

Where are we going to stop. Once we defeat Iraq and install some sort of government we like, who's next. I think if we are successful we may be tempted to keep going to North Korea, or Iran. I am not convinced that this will make for a safer world. In fact, I think it will inflame the world.

Black Hawk Down all over again. If you read the book or saw the movie, imagine that nightmare repeated a few times in a month. All it takes is one mechanical failure to set in motion a disaster like that.

We'll see how it plays out over the next few weeks.