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

I have noticed many anti-war bloggers who point towards a conspiracy in the defense establishment, who orchestrated the war in Iraq. Some bloggers barely skirt calling it a jewish conspiracy. Here is an article refuting this thoughtfully.

Why is is that most conspiracy theories end at a dark place where either jews or aliens control the world? I mean I like a good conspiracy as much as anyone else, but I have never been able to make the leap to actually believing in one. I am even less likely to believe in one where an ethnic/religious group controls the world.

One other thing that always stops me from believing in vast government conspiracies.

Competence. At it's core conspiracy implies a certain competence. The cabal can create a plan, carry it out effectively, and most importantly keep it a secret perfectly. While some people are conpetent, most big conspiracies would require hundreds of people to participate, many of whom would be government workers not reknowned for competence, imagination, or creativity.

Interesting article suggesting that those opposed to war under any circumstance come face to face with the mind numbing reality of how opposing war in all circumstances has the effect of allowing cruel dictatorships to continue brutal oppression.

While sometimes I still can't fully grasp the rationale for the war in Iraq. I am glad the people have been "liberated" from Saddam, but the reason we went in there still seems muddy to me.

Even as much as I don't like the inhumanity of war sometimes it the only thing that can stop greater inhumanity. I believe this is sympathetic to "just war" theology.

Personally, I wish that people living in countries run by third world thugs would overthrow their own dictatorships on their own, without the loss of U.S. service people.

Of course, the John Stewart Mill quote was talking about slavery in the U.S. That's a case where I wonder if there were any routes other than war to have accomplished the end of slavery. After all many nations gave up human slavery without civil war. In these cases the slave owners were compensated for there losses.

The interesting bit about that is that we, the U.S. enabled Iraq in the early 80's by befriending the enemy of our enemy.

As of today, I am the number one entry on google for the term "militant wilsonianism", if you quote the words.

To celebrate I thought I would list a few links, that discuss this concept also known as "hard wilsonianism" or "neo wilsonianism."

• Nickels worth of free advice
• Good Definition
• Conservatism, Labels, and American Foreign Policy, Part II -- adds term "hard wilsonian"
• What the Heck Is a 'Neocon'? -- much ballyhooed Max Boot op-ed piece
• principled pragmatism -- adds the term neo-wilsonian

My favorite, albeit broad, definition is this one.

The neocons, in the famous formulation of one of their leaders, Irving Kristol, were "liberals mugged by reality."

Collection of other Irving Kristol quotations. One of my favorites is this one.

"[Conservatism] Our revolutionary message ... is that a self-disciplined people can create a political community in which an ordered liberty will promote both economic prosperity and political participation."

... followed by ...

"Democracy does not guarantee equality of conditions - it only guarantees equality of opportunity."

I saw the above op-ed piece written by Eason Jordan. It was a stunning indictment of the brutal torture used by the former Iraqi regime to keep it's people in line. It was also a confession that CNN had purposely censored the news, so that it could protect people on the ground. While it is possible that their motives were simply to protect people on the ground, it is also true they were complicit in creating a view of the regime that didn't include the brutal acts outlined in the op-ed piece.

Then the Washington Post reports that there may have been a lot more complicity going on behind the scenes.

" The day after one such meeting, I was on the roof of the Ministry of Information, preparing for my first "live shot" on CNN. A producer came up and handed me a sheet of paper with handwritten notes. "Tom Johnson wants you to read this on camera," he said. I glanced at the paper. It was an item-by-item summary of points made by Information Minister Latif Jassim in an interview that morning with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jordan.

The list was so long that there was no time during the live shot to provide context. I read the information minister's points verbatim. Moments later, I was downstairs in the newsroom on the first floor of the Information Ministry. Mr. Johnson approached, having seen my performance on a TV monitor. "You were a bit flat there, Peter," he said. Again, I was astonished. The president of CNN was telling me I seemed less-than-enthusiastic reading Saddam Hussein's propaganda."

The accusation is that CNN bought access by broadcasting the regimes message and by censoring anti-regime information. I can't wait to see how this plays out.

Anyone who thinks media presents an unbiased view of the world needs their head examined.

Militant Wilsonianism

I am always on the lookout for interesting word combinations and changes in language. I ran across this phrase today in an review written by Ian Buruma about the book "Terror and Liberalism", written by Paul Berman.

The phrase implies to me that a "Militant Wilsonian" would go to war to end wars. That one could have a bloody revolution in world affairs in order to bring about a more peaceful world. Interesting notion. It seems to be the meme of the day.

Here is a good history lesson about Woodron Wilson and what Wilsonianism might represent.

There has been a lot of looting reported in Iraq. It appears tha government buildings have been hit the hardest, but that other places like museums, hotels, and ordinary businesses have been hit.

I was listening to a MPR on the way to work this morninig. The guest, Fawaz Gerges, who is chair of Middle Eastern and International Studies at Sarah Lawrence College in New York, seemed to be very well informed about Arab perceptions of the U.S. He is also the author of America and Political Islam: Clash of Interests or Clash of Cultures?

One bit he talked about confused me. He seemed to indicate the the Arab view, and by extension his view, was that the prevention of looting was the responsibility of the U.S. While I agree that we should provide security in Iraq and do our best to restore order (fulfilling our duties as described in the Geneva Convention), the responsibility for looting belongs squarely on the shoulders of the looters.

Let em say that again, more clearly. Looters are responsible for looting.

He also stated that Arabs very much want the U.S. out of Iraq and not to serve as a occupying force. Does anyone else see the coutradiction here. Get out of our country, but before you do be our police because we cannot restore order on our own. Seems like a no win situation to me.

If someone if familiar with Arab cultural practice or the typical interpretation of the Koran, what is normative Arab or Muslim behaviour in regards to looting? Is it acceptable in certain circumstances.

"In the early 1950s, the Dayak people of Borneo suffered from malaria. The World Health Organization had a solution: it sprayed large amounts of DDT to kill the mosquitoes that carried the malaria. The mosquitoes died; the malaria declined; so far, so good. But there were side effects. Among the first was that the roofs of people's houses began to fall down on their heads. It seemed that the DDT was also killing a parasitic wasp that had previously controlled thatch-eating caterpillars. Worse, the DDT-poisoned insects were eaten by geckos, which were eaten by cats. The cats started to die, the rats flourished, and the people were threatened by potential outbreaks of typhus and plague. To cope with these problems, which it had itself created, the World Health Organization was obliged to parachute 14,000 live cats into Borneo."
--The Pursuit of Interconnections(PDF)

This is an excellent story about unintended consequences.

Unintended consequence stories abound. Consider the following.

• Iraq was our ally in the Iran versus Iraq war. We (the U.S.) gave weapons, aid, and expertise to Saddam Hussein. I don't think we intended for him to brutally mistreat his own people, form networks with terror organizations, invade Kuwait, burn his own oil wells, murder his own people, but he did.
• We supported the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan to force out the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Unfortunately, they turned into the Taliban, who we later went to Afghanistan to destroy.
• Central American, need I say more.
• Introducing mongoose(s) to kill rats, when rats threaten non-native sugar cane fields. Then the mongoose(s) kill native bird species. This has happened in Hawaii and other tropical islands.
• Propping up the Shaw of Iran, probably caused to some degree the Islamic revolution in Iran along with the anti-American sentiments.
• The creation of a weak, divided Iraq by the British in the post WWI era, probably set up conditions for a dictatorship run by an iron fist.

What is the point of that list? The point is that the next few steps in Iraq may have large unintended consequences. Decision need to be made with the future in mind, rather than simply the problem at hand. If not, there way well be large negative unintended side effects.

The problem is how can we predict the future? We can't. What can we do? We can make a commitment to mop up our own messes.

Interesting Links

• Alternet Too liberal for my taste but examines similar issues in the middle east.
• Great definition and essay
• Sanctions versus war -- Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist
• Cato Institute -- Logical Conclusions: North Korea, Iran, and unintended consequences

Numerous news outlets are reporting the fall of Baghdad replete with looters, people tearing down statues and rejoicing in the streets.

While I don't think the war is over yet, the corrupt regime does seem to be falling apart. I love to see people tasting freedom. It brings back memories of the Berlin Wall coming down, and statues in Russia, Romania, and other Eastern European coutries being toppled. I believe self-determination is a basic human right we are endowed with by virtue of birth. I am so happy that people in Iraq are experiencing a taste of self determination and freedom. I hope it lasts, and I hope the war ends soon.

I wonder a lot about the future government of Iraq. It seems like it will take a lot to unite such a diverse populous. I hope they come up with a system of fairly autonmous states so that Shites, Sunni, and Kurds can all have societies where individual rights are respected without the abbrogation of others rights. For instance, I could see that in southern Iraq, they might want a state where there was Islamic law. In the north, they might want a semi-autonomous kurdish state. I believe it could work.

I am also hoping for a real and sustained peace, but I fear we are in for a longer fight in some of the outlying area's of Iraq.

If you read the essay, by Robert Kagan, entitled "Power and Weakness" one could get the sense that the application of military force to settle a far flung conflict or threat of conflict was unused prior to the 20th century. Until the U.S. had enough power to exert itself.

While I agree with this mostly, I do think it ignores some facts. Namely our very early conflict with the Barbary Pirates. Here is a paper entitled "America and the Barbary Pirates: An International Battle Against an Unconventional Foe", by Gerard W. Gawalt, that talks about out very early conflict with the Barbary Pirates. Here is another article Terrorism In Early America,The U.S. Wages War Against The Barbary States To End International Blackmail and Terrorism, by Thomas Jewett.

The point is that the U.S. has been willing in the 18th and 19th centuries to wage war, regardless iof it's power structure, assumming the adversary was not a super-power itself. This is even more true if you consider our relentless expansion into Indian territory as an excercise in power against sovereign nations.

Second Superpower

This interesting article makes the case that a super-national, diverse group of citizens (or smart mobs) who identify themselves more with people and the world than with nation states are becoming a super power in their own right. While perhaps this is a bit over blown as they don't have much of an army and are composed on individual with competing interests, I think it is very interesting conceptually. It certainly is interesting in the light of the still growing anti-globalization, environmental, and anti-war movements seen in the last few years. Some bits are a little preachy and sound like a call for action, replete with aging rock and rollers humming, "let's give peace a chance", but conceptually I think the author is on to something. I am not sure I want to cede my personal or national sovereignty to this mob / super-power.

Jim Moore, the author also has a blog with some interesting opinions. Among them, the notion that China will be the winner in Iraq, a notion I have floated to many people in private. I would go further and suggest China has a interest in keeping us busy outside of the far east and may be acting in their national interest by doing so.

The ideas floated in the essay are also sympathetic to the idea of a smart mobs. This concept is floated in a book by the same name, that I saw first on slashdot

For an alternate view of the essay mentioned above see this piece at the Register.

I was watching CNN as I was getting ready for work. They had the usual embedded reporter, now headed for Baghdad, talking about their movements and showing other tanks.

Then the bit that really stood out for me. Within 20 minutes they were talking live to the wife of the guy, previously pictured on the tank. The wife was obviously stunned. She indicated that she had not seen her husband since the end of January. CNN replayed the video while she was on the phone, so she was actually watching her husband, nearly live and seeing him on the outskirts of Baghdad. It was strange.

Reminds me of somthing I read somewhere. "Children won't have to ask their father's, "What did you do in Iraq?" They will know because they saw it on TV -- live."

I had noticed several references to the Polish contingent in Iraq. They have been publicly commended by Bush and Rumsfeld. Up until this conflict I had not given much thought to Polish military capabilities. I did a google search to see what information was available. Like any special forces group, little information is made public, but I did manage to find one really good web site.

Note, this web site is not available 24 hours a day. It seems like it is available several hours per day. I guess the state of free web hosting in Poland is a little behind the times. Not bad though, for a country that still has some problems with providing basic phone service.

For more information on Poland, check with the CIA Factbook.

The photo below was taken recently in Iraq. I believe it was controversial due to the prominence of the U.S. flag, no doubt the Poles would have rather seen a Polish flag, or keep the troops out of the media.

Did I mention I am Polish?

I was surprised to note that some take issue with Marines being asked to pray for the President.

What's the harm?