Nathaniel Ward on 06/06/2004 00:25:
How can you say the war was conducted incompetently? . . .
Not all Iraqi hearts and minds are with the US by any means, but I would find it hard to argue that the invasion and occupation were incompetently run. . .
consider that the US fought two wars in Iraq: first, the US successfully outgunned, as expected, the formal Iraqi army; second, the US ran into significant and well-armed terrorist-style resistance led by foreigners (like Zarqawi) and Iraqis (like al Sadr) alike...
In the end, not using our overwhelming power in our favor worked to our advantage: most of Iraq is considered stable, with few concentrated pockets of (foreign-supplied?) resistance to the Iraqi government's authority. The civil wars and mass uprisings predicted did not occur, and the large rebellions dissipated.
Can those who argue that the administration mostly or wholly bungled Iraq cite specific examples? My lack of understanding of this doesn't come from mental faults but from a paucity of convincing arguments that the administration has in fact failed there ...
more troops would not necessarily have meant fewer American deaths, which is what is implied.
I think the poster sought to bring up the very justifiable point that the media seems like "glossy propaganda" for the left. They do only seem to mention the failures and often go to extremes to present even successes in a bad light. The many successes often go uncovered by the large media (the New York Times, CBS, etc.).Ah, the old 'report only the good news' line. (and there is more good news!)
Does an ongoing nuclear program fit your definition of "material breach"?Heck, not if it doesn't exist!
Hart had harsh words for current American policy toward Iraq, telling the Forward that "some senior American officials are on record as advocating" a plan for a long-term military presence in the nation that amounts to "an imperial design."Eric Alterman said what "no one could have known" right before the war:
"The president should account to the American people more clearly who will go with us, what military force we will use, how much it will cost... and how many American and Iraqi casualties there will be," Hart said. "On a desk in the Pentagon there are casualty estimates. The president is obligated to share those. The worst thing that could happen is that public support will erode, which is what happened in Vietnam."
I admit that the beefed-up containment policy vis-�-vis Iraq, driven exclusively by the Bush administration's obsession with the issue, has been a smashing success. But rather than declare victory and stay in Iraq�with inspectors and the threat of force if they are resisted�the administration insists on embarking on an unnecessary and potentially ruinous war. While I will support it once it begins, as a patriot, and in the belief that a quick victory will result in the most minimal loss of life, I continue to oppose its commencement for the following reasons. Any one of them strikes me as sufficient, but the combination strikes me as overwhelming:Look at the other comments on slate (which I linked to before the war). See how embarassing the conservative and liberal hawk comments are, and what some of what the other comments say is now becoming conventional wisdom. "But no one said before the war..." "We couldn't have known..." Uh huh. Clint said: "Remember: Governments lie when they want to go to war." How many people will forget this lesson with Iran? Here's one of my pre-war posts on trusting the administration:
The war against al-Qaida is not yet won, and this war will shift resources away from it.
We remain enormously vulnerable to another terrorist attack, and this war will shift resources away from securing the "homeland."
The war will cause the very problem it is alleged to address: anti-American terrorism.
Pakistan is far more likely to give a nuclear weapon to terrorists; North Korea is a greater danger to world peace. We should address those problems immediately, rather than hope they will solve themselves while we are preoccupied with Iraq.
The war will place Israel in mortal danger of a gas attack and rally both sides in the Palestinian conflict in ways that can only be counterproductive to peace.
George Bush was right in the first place: "The United States must be proud and confident of our values, but humble in how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course." We should not be in the business of "nation building," something at which, as evidenced by Afghanistan, we suck.
George Bush and the men surrounding him�Colin Powell excepted�are not honest men any more than Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, or Ronald Reagan were. The nation is still paying the price for its misplaced trust in those leaders in matters of war and peace.
Much of the uniformed military, including Maj. Gen. Anthony Zinni, who served as the head of the U.S. Central Command as well as George W. Bush's representative to the Middle East peace negotiations, remain unconvinced that this war is necessary at this time. Read a talk he gave on the topic recently here. If Gen. Zinni is unconvinced, I'm unconvinced.
Lies from the last warJonathan wrote when the war begun:
How the last Bush administration lied about some of their justifications in the last showdown with Iraq. These are the same people in charge now. To the extent the case for war depends on trusting the administration, I'm not buying. Libertarian blogger Julian Sanchez writes:That's when my friend pointed me to an ABC News report on the declassification of documents related to something called Operation Northwoods, apparently old news in lefty circles for a while now. I hadn't heard about it. What I hadn't heard is that, in the 60s, top American military brass -- not a couple lone wackos, top brass -- developed a plan to instigate war with Cuba by killing Americans using terrorist tactics and then blaming Castro for it.
Let me repeat that for the hard-of-reading. The Pentagon had plans, documents declassified only recently, after 40 years, to launch terrorist attacks against the U.S. as a pretext for war. This is not a conspiracy theory; it is a matter of public record. What most of us do still recall, though it's not brought up all that often, is that in order to gain Saudi permission to use the country as a staging ground, Bush I totally fabricated satellite photos showing Iraqi troops massing on the border. I also needed to be reminded that Saint Colin Powell, paragon of credibility, was implicated, at least tangentially, in the Iran-Contra coverup by the Independent Counsel....
Well, now I don't know. The problem, of course, is that things like Northwoods, or the Gulf of Tonkin lie, typically come out well after the fact, so that we don't get the same degree of outrage and skepticism we might have seen had they been revealed at the time. And the fatal problem with thinking along these lines is, of course, that an effective cover-up actually covers things up: you can't expect to find contemporaneous evidence...
Smackdown!This is an important point: despite Bush's later lies, everything I've seen says that the U.S. ordered the inspectors out, not that Saddam kicked them out. I'll see if I can find the later references and article links to show this.
Sorry. I got a little too excited. But it's on. It's definitely on. We just told the inspectors to pack up. Boy, as soon as the sun rose on Monday Bush sure did begin the end of his diplomacy. He wasn't bullshitting about that (you can debate if there ever actually was any diplomacy).
Three former college football teammates of Sen. George Allen say that the Virginia Republican repeatedly used an inflammatory racial epithet and demonstrated racist attitudes toward blacks during the early 1970s.However, the Allen campaign complains this is "Swiftboating". Yes, they use that term... hmmm....
"Allen said he came to Virginia because he wanted to play football in a place where 'blacks knew their place,'" said Dr. Ken Shelton, a white radiologist in North Carolina who played tight end for the University of Virginia football team when Allen was quarterback. "He used the N-word on a regular basis back then."
A second white teammate, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he feared retribution from the Allen campaign, separately claimed that Allen used the word "nigger" to describe blacks. "It was so common with George when he was among his white friends. This is the terminology he used," the teammate said.
[...]
Shelton said he also remembers a disturbing deer hunting trip with Allen on land that was owned by the family of Billy Lanahan, a wide receiver on the team. After they had killed a deer, Shelton said he remembers Allen asking Lanahan where the local black residents lived. Shelton said Allen then drove the three of them to that neighborhood with the severed head of the deer. "He proceeded to take the doe's head and stuff it into a mailbox," Shelton said.
People and societies don't just wake up one morning to find they no longer recognize themselves. It's a process. And we are in the process in this country of "defining deviancy down" in ways I never thought possible. We are legitimizing torture and indefinite detention --- saying that we will only do this to the people who really deserve it. One cannot help but wonder what "really deserves it" will mean in the years to come as we fight our endless war against terror.Digby also says:
Sure, right now it's just a bunch of foreigners and I guess we don't feel foreigners are entitled to basic human rights. They must not be human --- or at least not as human as "we" are. When you think about it, who knows who "we" are either? Right wingers make millions of dollars writing books about how liberals are godless, death-loving, traitors within. Many people who read those books probably believe these liberals are only one step away from being sub-human too ---- they are, after all, godless traitors.
But as the soviet experience shows, anyone can be defined as such sub-humans and at some point it usually comes around to catch even the people who wrote the original tales of godless, death-loving traitors within. I don't know why --- maybe it's a kill the messenger thing.
I have written often about how the Republicans are becoming what they railed against for decades: totalitarians. Unsurprisingly I suppose, it turns out that what they really hated about Soviet communism was the economics. The 50 years of ranting about personal liberty and anti-authoritarian government seems to have been mere political rhetoric. Now that they are in power themselves they have adopted certain Soviet values quite seamlessly.Digby links to this article by a former Soviet dissident:
So, why would democratically elected leaders of the United States ever want to legalize what a succession of Russian monarchs strove to abolish? Why run the risk of unleashing a fury that even Stalin had problems controlling? Why would anyone try to "improve intelligence-gathering capability" by destroying what was left of it? Frustration? Ineptitude? Ignorance? Or, has their friendship with a certain former KGB lieutenant colonel, V. Putin, rubbed off on the American leaders? I have no answer to these questions, but I do know that if Vice President Cheney is right and that some "cruel, inhumane or degrading" (CID) treatment of captives is a necessary tool for winning the war on terrorism, then the war is lost already.
[...]
If America's leaders want to hunt terrorists while transforming dictatorships into democracies, they must recognize that torture, which includes CID, has historically been an instrument of oppression -- not an instrument of investigation or of intelligence gathering. No country needs to invent how to "legalize" torture; the problem is rather how to stop it from happening. If it isn't stopped, torture will destroy your nation's important strategy to develop democracy in the Middle East. And if you cynically outsource torture to contractors and foreign agents, how can you possibly be surprised if an 18-year-old in the Middle East casts a jaundiced eye toward your reform efforts there?
Finally, think what effect your attitude has on the rest of the world, particularly in the countries where torture is still common, such as Russia, and where its citizens are still trying to combat it. Mr. Putin will be the first to say: "You see, even your vaunted American democracy cannot defend itself without resorting to torture. . . . "
[Question]: But isn�t it the Supreme Court that�s supposed to decide whether laws are unconstitutional or not?
[Whitehouse Spokesperson Tony Snow]: No, as a matter of fact the president has an obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is an obligation that presidents have enacted through signing statements going back to Jefferson. So, while the Supreme Court can be an arbiter of the Constitution, the fact is the President is the one, the only person who, by the Constitution, is given the responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend that document, so it is perfectly consistent with presidential authority under the Constitution itself.
So we "formally" leave Geneva alone, but grant the executive branch complete discretion in determining what "cruel" means; and the language of the bill certainly can be construed to allow waterboarding, hypothermia, sleep deprivation, stress positions, and long-time standing. It even allows for a person to be beaten, cut, or near-drowned.
It's important to note that McCain does not believe that this is the case. He believes that the definition of "cruel" here would bar such "alternative methods". But we know from bitter experience that in any ambiguity, this administration has opted for the more draconian interpretation. So therefore all of these techniques, described in detail in Solzheniytsen's "Gulag Archipelago," potentially remain available to this president under this proposal. Barring further clarifications confirming McCain's belief that this bill bars these "alternative methods", I see no legal barrier in this bill to Bush's continuing to authorize them in the future. Worse, the proposal will have declared these practices not to be "cruel". Worse still, its Orwellian abuse of language contains echoes of totalitarian discourse.
I said something stupid. I apologize for it and would apologize in person to anyone hurt by my comments. To those who are understandably offended, you have my deepest apologies and I want you to know that it was out of character for me and those who know me know that to be a fact. This was a thoughtless remark that does not reflect my lifetime commitment to treating everyone fairly and without bias. I apologize to everyone who is offended by this comment.Several people have noted that this was a better apology than the standard non-apology apology, which says I'm sorry if you took offense, and sometimes does not take responsibility for causing the offense and implicitly says the person is too sensitive. This is typified by George Allen recently, and a few liberal bloggers had said that Hudson shows Allen how a proper apology is made.
1984 we were in Panama. Our unit was doing a two-week training down there. I commanded an infantry company and we were practicing crossing a river. You know, an infantry company has 140 some-odd soldiers. A large number were black. I grew up in Alabama and I understand and I know this from my own experiences that blacks aren�t the best swimmers or may not even know how to swim. But we were crossing this and wanted to make sure every soldier could swim and if they couldn�t we�d get them across the river. We had the line across the river and we were making our passage way and one of the black soldiers with his ruck-sack on his back, his weapon and fell from the line�he let go. Sunk down to the bottom of the river. And I�ve got to tell you, it took my breath away.Pandagon says Hudson's comment prompted these thoughts:
1. How many black people does he actually know?Pandagon also says:
2. It clearly never crossed his mind that maybe fewer blacks swim because of socioeconomic factors � perhaps the ones he�s been around don�t have swimming pools or access to them.
3. If he did know about #2 above, he would have saved himself a lot of grief by adding a line about it to put his statement into context.
4. What about mixed race people � how white do you have to be to possess floatability in Hudson�s book?
The above comments by these people are, again, not meant to offend, even as they do. What�s embarrassing is that the level of ignorance is completely guileless, almost innocent. The problem is that they are sorry, but usually not sorry enough to want to correct their state of ignorance. The people making the unfortunate comments don�t feel any need to extend themselves to become better informed or really know any blacks on a personal level, because that�s not their world.Pandagon has lots more about race and curiousity, including how a professor answered a white student's quuestion: "Can black people tan?". This story comes from see this article.
For the record yes, obviously George Allen was trying to use a racial slur against S.R. Sidarth. The reason you might not think it was a slur is that the slur in question was terribly obscure. It's obscure, however, because it's a French slur. And Allen's mother is . . . a white Frenchwoman who grew up in Tunisia, exactly the sort of person who would know all about French racial slurs. And Allen speaks French. And, of course, in Allen's youthful California days he was a white supremacist fond of flying the Stars and Bars.
There, again, for a southern person of a certain age to have an affection for the Confederate Flag might mean any number of things. But for a Californian to have an affection for the Confederate Flag isn't open to a lot of interpretation.
We would like to thank you for taking the right stand on the gaffe of Sen. George Allen ["George Allen's America," editorial, Aug. 15].
It is quite shocking for a person of Mr. Allen's caliber, who is running for a second Senate term and is a likely candidate for president in 2008, to point a finger at a young lad of 20, bullying our grandson, S.R. Sidarth, and calling him a derogatory and uncalled-for name. Sidarth was only videotaping the event.
In the 1930s Sidarth's great-grandfather accompanied Mohandas Gandhi to London as his secretary at the Round Table Conference on political reform in India. We come from a heritage of nationalists and seekers after truth. Hence these remarks hurt all the more, and we are personally affected by such an attack.
BOB NARASIMHAN
MANI NARASIMHAN
Bethesda
The front page headline "Allen Quip Provokes Outrage. . . " and the editorial ("George Allen's America" no less) represent a pro-Webb two-punch. Who exactly was outraged by Allen's putdown? The Webb campaign and its volunteer. The silly editorial irrelevantly points out that the offended Webb partisan has "an excellent academic record" and "is thinking of applying to law school." Although the bright young man wasn't smart enough to avoid insulting Virginia voters. He told the Post, "I was the person of color there and it was useful for him in inciting his audience." He apparently believes that drawing attention to him would reliably rile up the racist Virginia crackers. Whose quip should provoke outrage?Gasp! It outrageous to suggest that there might be some racists still left in Virginia? More outrageous than Allen using a racial slur (in addition to the 'Welcome to America' comment)? Yeah... What a load of bull. Sad thing is, you see this kind of logic all the time in NRO.
So: no solid evidence of a) passports, b) tickets, c) prepared explosives. So far- and this may change, of course - we know of one individual allegedly prepping for a "dry-run." Everyone else was already under intense surveillance. And yet this group of potentially lethal Islamists was arrested suddenly, perhaps forfeiting subsequent evidence or intelligence, and maybe rendering a successful prosecution impossible. One wonders why. Faulty tortured evidence from Pakistan? Jitteriness in Washington? There did not seem to be much jitteriness in Downing Street in the week before the planned "dry-run." Tony Blair decided to go on vacation, and never left it. Most of the leading British officials were chilling. Brown was in Scotland. Two suspects have already been released without being charged. The British authorities are asking for time extensions on detaining the rest - not a good sign for the prosecution.
Human Rights Watch researchers found numerous cases in which the IDF launched artillery and air attacks with limited or dubious military objectives but excessive civilian cost. In many cases, Israeli forces struck an area with no apparent military target. In some instances, Israeli forces appear to have deliberately targeted civilians. (link)Peter Bouckaert, one of the HRW research has also published an editorial in the herald tribune that suggests Israel's disregard for civilians in lebanon has been worse than many recent comparable wars:
As a researcher for Human Rights Watch, I've documented civilian deaths from bombing campaigns in Kosovo and Chechnya, Afghanistan and Iraq. But these usually occur when there is some indication of military targeting: high-ranking members of Saddam Hussein's regime present in a house just before it is hit, for example, or an attack against militants that causes the collateral deaths of many civilians. In Lebanon, it's a different scene. Time after time, Israel has hit civilian homes and cars in the southern border zone, killing dozens of people with no evidence of any military objective.
My notebook overflows with reports of civilian deaths. On July 15, Israeli fire killed 21 people fleeing from Marhawin, including 13 children; no weapons, no Hezbollah nearby. On July 16, an Israeli bomb killed 11 civilians in Aitaroun, including seven members of a Canadian-Lebanese family on vacation; again, no Hezbollah, no weapons. On July 19, at least 26 civilians were killed in Srifa when Israeli bombs flattened an entire neighborhood; no evidence of military targets. On July 23, at least seven civilians were killed when Israeli warplanes bombed dozens of cars trying to flee the south after receiving Israeli instructions to evacuate immediately; no indication of weapons convoys in the vicinity. The list goes on, with about 500 civilians killed so far (link)