Oddly enough or maybe not so odd, Michael Moore has the only 'self-righteous' position on the war (click here). The 'reasons' for the illegal invasion into Iraq that are now five years past were completely based in Republican greed and pledges made in backrooms and dining rooms to cronies that support that 'greed structure.'
I find the 'title' article to The Washington Post's position on this COMPLETED fifth year of an illegal war hideous and completely victimizing. The picture is of an American GI with an Iraqi child (It doesn't say whether its his own child or not.) and the caption states : "The Iraqi children "will always be my most fond memories of the war," Paul Rieckhoff says (click here). (Paul Reickhoff Photo)."
That is TRUE of any war any American GI participated. It was true of Korea, WWII, WWI, Vietnam, the Spanish-American War, etc. Children are 'easy' propaganda targets and if one ever watched "Fahrenheit 911" the realities of the Iraqi children were really NOT so bad in Iraq before the invasion and the bombs of Georgie Bush.
The Washington Post is giving coverage to the Anti-War Demonstrations (click here) today and there was a key place on their website regarding same yesterday. The Anti-War Movement has been not only correct, but, the ONLY AMERICAN institution with any HONOR regarding the illegal invasion into Iraq. No one in this country that is Pro-War has a moral arguement or moral authority to back them up. NONE !!
The current 'propaganda' in the USA that the media espouses in support of this war is with some underlying understanding that 'our presence' is necessary. It is not. There is gross evidence that the American presence in Iraq has completed disrupted a sovereign country and continues to do so without any end in sight. Literally, Iraq is a composite of anarchy and any form of hatred/anger that exists in Islam.
In the American experience there lies the understanding that "Iraq is the front line of the War on Terror." There is no war on terror. There WAS a war that was to destroy al Qaeda when it WAS CONTAINED in Afghanistan, but, there is no war on terror. The enemies to the USA in the attacks of 9/11 were al Qaeda ( IN AFGHANISTAN ).
To look at the reality that IS IRAQ on this fifth completed year of unjustified war we need to look at the huge deaths within Iraq that would have NEVER have occurred otherwise.
September 2007 – More than 1,000,000 Iraqis murdered
In the week in which General Patraeus reports back to US Congress on the impact the recent ‘surge’ is having in Iraq, a new poll reveals that more than 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have been murdered since the invasion took place in 2003.
Previous estimates, most noticeably the one published in the Lancet in October 2006, suggested almost half this number (654,965 deaths).
These findings come from a poll released today by ORB, the British polling agency that has been tracking public opinion in Iraq since 2005. In conjunction with their Iraqi fieldwork agency a representative sample of 1,499 adults aged 18+ answered the following question:-
Q How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (ie as a result of violence rather than a natural death such as old age)? Please note that I mean those who were actually living under your roof.
None 78%
One 16%
Two 5%
Three 1%
Four or more 0.002%
Given that from the 2005 census there are a total of 4,050,597 households this data suggests a total of 1,220,580 deaths since the invasion in 2003. Calculating the affect from the margin of error we believe that the range is a minimum of 733,158 to a maximum of 1,446,063
http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78
Now, Rove the 'Mastermind' behind propaganda to the illegal invasion would look at those statistics and state, "There are 78% of Iraqi households that have been untouched by war." That would be a lie, but, the kind of spin the Republican Party would place on such statistics. They would completely abandon the reality of the dead over and above the normal attrition rate of any populous and would seek to EXPLOIT any reality that would 'seem' a reason to continue their unjustified war.
There is NO moral authority in those 'spin' positions by this administration and that is ALL the Bush/Cheney Executive Branch has; SPIN. The WMD never manifested and there is no movement to supply Iraq with an infrastructure of democracy 'ANY DIFFERENT' than the voting rights allowed people under their former dictator. Oh, yes, the Iraqi people used to vote and they even voted for their dictator, but, of course the oppression of their society dictated any voter outcomes, for the most part. So, today in Iraq, there is a similar infrastructure as before except there is a revolving door at the top of the government to reflect the majority choice of the people. Whether or not there is actually any difference in Iraq in its social structure is IMPOSSIBLE for ANYONE to say. There is war now. There was no war then !
March 07 – Despite violence only 26% preferred life under Saddam
One in four (26%) Iraqi adults have had a family relative murdered in the last three years, while 23% of those living in Baghdad have had a family/relative kidnapped in the last three years.
These are among the findings released today from the largest poll into Iraqi opinion ever to be published. Carried out by UK research firm ORB, which has been tracking public opinion in Iraq since 2005, the poll shows that despite the horrendous personal security problems only 26% of the country preferred life under the previous regime of Saddam Hussein, with almost half (49%) preferring life under the current political system. As one may expect, it is the Sunnis who are most likely to back the previous regime (51%) with the Shias (66%) preferring the current arrangements.
Carried out amongst a nationally representative sample of 5,019 Iraqi adults aged 18 years+ and coming just days before the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, the poll reveals that despite the large number of civilian deaths each month, largely as a result of militia activity, only 27% believe that their country is actually in a state of civil war. Opinion here is clearly divided, as 22% feel “we are close to a state of civil war but not yet in one” while 18% argue that the country is “still some way from civil war”.
Regionally, 43% of those in the Shia dominated South believe “Iraq will never get as far as civil war”. The corresponding figure in the Sunni dominated North plummets to 5% where the strongest sentiment (voiced by 42%) is that the country is already in a state of civil war.
http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=67
The primary difference in Iraq today as opposed to Iraq under Saddam is the fact the Shia are out from under a Sunni dictator and it is that reailty that stimulates the Iraqi Sunnis and the regional Sunnis to encourage continued violence. It is that 'fear' of the Sunnis that al Qaeda feeds on to continue to recruit young men into their networks and it is that 'fear' that drives the Iranian position into being the premier Shia nation.
Has the 'balance of power' of the region changed? You betcha. It is now a Middle East paranoid of each other rather than one stabilized and moving into peace negotitations to end all hatred while containing networks such as al Qaeda. Iraq is a grossly destabilizing country that ADDS opportunity to conflict. The primary example of that is the Turkish invasion into northern Iraq which used to be under a "No Fly Zone."
The war in Iraq has 'set back' progress in the region for decades. It is so destabilizing there are elements within Middle East nations that long for a different reality, but, find no service to war. While the Bush/Cheney Executive Branch and Republican Legislature have the right to EXPLOIT their positions in 'photo ops' to promote their position, there is actually little that the Middle East Leadership shares with them in the way of sentiment to the goals of their people.
Iraq war enters its sixth year
Hasan Abu Nimah
When the United States led its invasion of Iraq five years ago, few imagined it would last longer than World War II.
The best American estimates were that it would be short and glorious, with a manageable cost in “blood and treasure”. Even with growing doubts about the validity of the pretexts for the war, its supporters were convinced that it would be vindicated by its results.
When a war is not necessary, the loss of one life is too much. Few still proclaim this war was justified and yet the cost is beyond imagination.
Five years later, and with no end in sight, the war cannot be seen but as a disaster. Nothing can bring back the estimated million people who died as a direct or indirect consequence. Millions of people have become refugees or been internally displaced, and Iraqi communities are shattered by civil war, violence and sectarianism.
A state has been destroyed and replaced with anarchy, gangsterism and corruption no less awful than during the previous regime.
The Americans wanted the toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein to be the lasting image of the war; instead it is Abu Ghraib that we remember.
Beyond Iraq, the wider region is more fragile and uncertain, and few are optimistic. The war in Iraq is framed as part of the larger “war on terror”, with its own awful history in Guantanamo, “rendition” to secret prisons, torture and loss of civil liberties and freedom in the very countries that preach democracy and claim to be protecting it.
The moral degeneration and blatant violation of democratic principles in the name of democracy has become the norm, which no longer even shocks us.
While the war has cost the Iraqis the most, its cost on the United States has not been insignificant. Four thousand Americans have died and tens of thousands were injured. The economic costs of the war are simply staggering: recent figures estimate that taxpayers will have spent $607 billion to pay for the war through next September.
Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and his colleagues estimate it will be a stunning $3 trillion when all the long-term costs of caring for the injured is taken into account. Compare this to the mere $50 billion that former US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed it would cost.
With 154,000 American troops currently stationed in Iraq, a March Reuters report quoted an economist’s estimate that every month of combat adds more than $10 billion to the US national debt that now tops $9 trillion.
Referring to the deepening economic crisis in the United States, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said: “You cannot separate the economy from the long bloody civil war in Iraq.”
Reid added that Democrats were hearing from voters back home that “we don’t have money for anything anymore. We are borrowing all the money for Iraq”.
Stiglitz blames the war for part of the rocketing oil prices. Before the war, a barrel of crude was about $30. Now it is $110.
As a rich country, the United States may be able to afford this war and absorb it, but why the waste? Why should America spend that much and indeed waste that much, in addition to the intolerable loss of life for nothing? It is obvious that violence is part of human nature no matter how civilised and rational we think we are.
War may continue to be part of human practice no matter how loathsome. Yet the accompanying reality is that nations and states go to war when all other options to resolve a conflict are exhausted and, most importantly, when there is a valid cause. Neither was the case with respect to Iraq. It was an uncalled for aggression for its own sake. The removal of a dictator, the last resort excuse, was none of the business of the invaders. The liberation and democratisation of Iraq was not accomplished. Iraqis were simply thrown from one nightmare into another.
With a small fraction of the war’s cost, a lot of prosperity could have been introduced to the lives of people who need it most. While spending on war compounds the damage and destruction, saving by avoiding war would duplicate the benefit, spread progress and solve enormous social and practical problems.
One billion people could get electricity for the first time in their lives for little more than the reported cost of one month’s war in Iraq, says Rajendra Pachauri, head of a Nobel Peace Prize winning UN panel of climate scientists. Just imagine how much more progress in every other human field and activity could have been achieved with the rest of the money already wasted on this disastrous war, and how many lives could have been saved.
How this war could finally end is anyone’s guess. The realistic guess, though, is that we may have many more of its anniversaries to “celebrate”.
19 March 2008
http://www.jordantimes.com/index.php?news=6522
The answer to the quandry of the Jordanian editor is easily answered. There is no justifiable reason for the USA to remain in Iraq. The 'idea' that a democratic Iraq is possible is simply a fools 'dreamscape' that will never carry brevity within that country. The people of Iraq have a 'long' history of violence and to have civility come to them in the way Western countries understand it is simply not a reality that will readily occur. Also in that reality of the Iraqi people, primarily the Shi'ites, is 'the ability to exploit' the country for further war. If the Iraqi people don't view the Iraq War as a war then any 'opinion poll' in regard to the 'ethics of killing' will serve to justify violence even further, keeping in mind, to the Islamist death is a reward and their physical presence felt more strongly and revered when accompanied by death.
The 'reward' of death to the Iraqi Islamist has to end and it will never end so long as war is viewed as 'everyday strife.'
Iraq is no more a threat to the national security of the USA than it was the day Bush/Cheney invaded it. The potential is not there. There has been no mass movement to affiliate with al Qaeda and in any 'research' to discover links between al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgency there is only one link. That link is the reality that "Al Qaeda does the heavy lifting around here." In other words, al Qaeda in Iraq is the mirror image to the USA occupation. It carries out most if not all the 'organized' violence against the people of Iraq to stimulate terror and negative feelings of their government. We know for a fact, the major attacks are linked to al Qaeda and NOT any form of Iraqi insurgency. So it is GROSSLY unrealistic to believe there will be some sort of mass infrastructure shift to allow al Qaeda their own country. That is not possible, the people of Iraq, whether Shia or Sunni are lead by their Holy Men and not their militia men even when that militia might be al Qaeda. Keep in mind, the 'first' leader of al Qaeda in Iraq was Jordanian and NOT Iraqi.
Through this entire entry there is one reality, there is no justification for the USA to remain in Iraq. All the 'so called' reasons are simply Republican propaganda as reported in the media reinforced in some undertone by the USA - FCC in whatever punitive measures exist to them.
The reality that the USA is its own problem in a country the size of Texas is all too clear. There is no role for the USA military in a country where they compound issues of violence and conflict where they even CAUSE social fear and unrest hence elevating violent backlashes while giving justification to insurgency and the presence of al Qaeda.
When innocent people are slaughtered by private contractors and USA military alike, when puppies are thrown over cliffs in entertainment by USA military personnel, where torture by the USA military is more remembered than the overthrow of a dictator, when in the presence of the USA military and diplomacy there is increased alliance between Iraq and Iran, then the evidence is plainly clear.
We don't belong in Iraq.
We never did.
