Fables of the Reconstruction

shotamoose

I'm a bit puzzled about what the Americans are doing in Iraq. IMHO, they're going about things completely the wrong way. Because they didn't have to give any real thought to the idea of the legitimacy of the war in order to win it, they think they don't have to deal with legitimacy in the aftermath. And they also seem to think that letting anyone else get a 'finger in the pie' would somehow remove the point of the whole operation.

But it would actually make their job a lot easier, assuming their desired goal really is a peaceful and democratic Iraq, if they gave in a little and asked for help. Two reasons: firstly, it would look better, and impressions matter. The more they act like an occupying army (WE won the war, so we get to hand out the reconstruction contracts and bus in our hand-picked 'future leaders', and we want military bases here and a say over who gets to run the oil industry. YOU don't get to choose squat cos you didn't take the 'risk' of the war, etc) the more mistrust they will sow among ordinary Iraqis who are justifiably sceptical over US intentions. But if they allowed more countries in and gave even the impression of it being an international, let's-all-pull-together reconstruction effort ... well, they wouldn't get their way the whole time, but Iraqis would not have an automatic reason to protest against everything they didn't like, ie "the Americans are just looking out for themselves". The path they've chosen seems destined to antagonise lots of people and stir up the kind of serious anti-US sentiment that could destabilise the country and postpone real democracy.

Secondly, they need help. They are struggling to organise even small aid convoys, to restart the bureacratic machinery they watched being destroyed by looters, to restore people's basic confidence that there is a point going to work or to a hospital or sending their kids to school. They don't seem to have anticipated the problems that happen when a socialist government that employes and pays millions of people entirely collapses. Specifically, they need UN help: to remove sanctions, to reconfigure or end the Oil for Food programme, to sort out the matter of compensation payments from the last war to Kuwait and others, to carry out the vast research projects to establish what actually needs to be done, to run projects in health and administration etc. (They also need LOADS of money, but to be honest this might be something they'll just have to come up with themselves. Problem is they'd prefer not to)

Without all this, what is happening is that the strongest social network in Iraq, that of the Shia mosques, has organised itself in many areas to take care of peoples' needs. They are "collecting looted property and returning it to the owners, public or private; securing water plants, electricity substations and hospitals; and establishing defense committees with uniformed personnel, bearing Kalashnikovs, at checkpoints" (source).

Whether this makes them nice people or vigilantes is beside the point. They are giving a dependable social structure to people's lives, and because of this and the status of religion among some parts of Iraqi society, they command legitimacy in a way that Jay Garner can only dream of. Mr Garner, recently moved into Baghdad's Republican Palace, says he doesn't 'recognise' the authority claimed by religious leaders. Well who recognises his? Quite apart from the failure so far to get anything done, there's been no surrender or international recognition of a new regime. For now he's just an occupying general with a clipboard instead of a gun.

So, does anyone think the US really has a well-thought-out plan of what they're doing in Iraq? Or are they just winging it and hoping for the best?

I dunno. I think they're winging it to a certain degree. I'd say that they have a loose plan, considering they have asked the UN for help in regards to the Humanitarian Aid Programme, and have also called for the "food for oil" to be reinstated.

Samara

About two weeks after the war started, I read an article which claimed that Bush had already promised contracts to American construction companies for the rebuilding of Iraq over the next five years. Blair wanted the reconstruction to be handled by the UN, but Bush wanted the coalition (i.e. the Americans with a little help from the British) to handle the coalition. The reconstruction contracts and the oil interests will boost American economy for years to come. It seems the opinions the international community, Iraq itself and even America's close ally Blair are being pointedly ignored.

Iraq is already experiencing discontent at the occupying forces. America's claim that they are a liberating army are falling flat simply because they refuse to hand over the reconstruction to the UN and Iraqi people. The various religious leaders in Iraq yield a power completely underestimated by the Coalition, and if they don't wise up to the atmosphere and take steps to allow the Iraqi people to establish their own government sooner rather than later, the war in Iraq will reignite, not only against the coalition but between the various factions within Iraq.

I fear that the UN have had their day, firstly they were completely ignored and protocol was not followed by the coaltion in the steps up to initial invasion. They went ahead despite absence of a UN resolution. Korea have now stated they refuse to speak with the UN and will only deal with America directly and they are being largely ignored by the US in the reconstruction. The impact of these acts are only beginning to emerge. Korea have been allegedly testing and training to counteract the tactics used by the Coalition forces in Iraq. While America focuses it's attention on reconstruction, Korea appears to be preparing itself and organising a force which will provide worthy resistance in the event of a war with the US. I honestly think that America should leave the reconstruction largely to the UN and Iraqi people and focus their attention on countries blatantly flouting such military activity.

Trebor

INHO the un failed because it did not do what it was set up to do whcih is to stop people like sadam from staying in power, now i am not saying that it was right for the americans to go without UN approval but the un has now been shown to be toothless. Because of the veto system there will always be a country that will appose military action against another as one of the 5 permanent states has interests in nealy any country you care to mention. In regards to the US's plans for iraq i believe they think that they can turn it into another isreal, an arab coutnry that they support that are pro american but they will find out the hard way that it will not be possible.

bonkey

Originally posted by Trebor
it did not do what it was set up to do whcih is to stop people like sadam from staying in power,

You really think that this is the purpose of the UN? Maybe you should actually read their charter.

I dont know what the US is doing in Iraq...I cant figure it out at all. I'm waiting to see where it goes before deciding whether or not they have a clue about what they're doing, whether or not they have genuinely honourable intentions, and how its going in general.

Just like the war was a disaster when it wasnt over in the timeframe the media wanted, the "all going awry in Iraq" commentary strikes me as a bit premature. Unfortunately, I have a deep-seated belief that it will ultimately end up that way, and I do believe that the US arent doing enough at present....but I think I'll still withold final judgement until things have had a chance to progress at anything resembling a realistic scale.

jc

shotamoose

Another article on this very topic today in (yet again) the New York Times. I think it's a pretty startling piece, especially the bits about two competing 'warlords-in-suits' with their own private armed forces going around claiming credit for any work being done and trying to build alliances. I'll post the whole article for the benefit of those not registered with the NYT.

---

April 24, 2003
U.S. Warns Iraqis Against Claiming Authority in Void
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and JOHN KIFNER


BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 23 - The American military moved today to strip Baghdad's self-appointed administrator of his authority and warned Iraqi factions not to take advantage of the confusion and the political void in the country by trying to grab power.

Lt. Gen. David McKiernan, the commander of ground forces in Iraq, issued a proclamation putting Iraq's politicians on notice, saying, "The coalition alone retains absolute authority within Iraq." He warned that anyone challenging the American-led authority would be subject to arrest.

However, the American military presence is sparse in several areas of the city. With nobody to stop them, long-banned groups ranging from Shiite radicals to communists have been seizing villas in Baghdad and adorning them with their respective emblems.

Jay Garner, the retired lieutenant general who will lead reconstruction efforts, just arrived in Baghdad on Monday and has been traveling in the north these past two days. General McKiernan and his force are supposed to provide the security to enable rebuilding.

General Garner, traveling in the Kurdish-held northern region of Iraq, said today that anti-American sentiment would soon subside.

"The majority of people realize we are only going to stay here long enough to start a democratic government for them," he said. "We're only going to stay here long enough to get their economy going." Once that was grasped, General Garner added, "In a very short order you'll see a change in the attitudes and the will of the people themselves."

The toppling of Saddam Hussein two weeks ago has left a power vacuum. American military forces in Iraq continue to round up members of the old government. Today they captured four former Iraqi officials, including two senior members of Iraqi intelligence.

But American troops are still being killed and wounded as they try to make Iraq safer and as political factions and clerics rush to fill the void of authority.

Three American marines died today in an accident involving a rocket-propelled grenade near the city of Kut, about 100 miles southeast of Baghdad. Earlier this week, an Army soldier was killed south of Baghdad when he fell from a truck. "That's the big problem we're going to face now, accidents," a Marine captain said.

But outside the military sphere, large political problems loomed. Among those engaged in the rush for power were two longtime Iraqi exiles. American concern over the activities of these two men - Muhammad Mohsen Zobeidi and Ahmad Chalabi - has begun to grow, military officials said.

Mr. Zobeidi, who recently returned to Iraq, asserts that he was chosen to lead an executive council charged with administering Baghdad. He has reportedly sought to appoint a police chief, ignoring the police official installed by the Army's Third Infantry Division, and his supporters have appropriated government vehicles.

Mr. Zobeidi, who says his qualifications for running Baghdad include participation in a disaster control management course arranged by the State Department, has also proposed sending a delegation to represent Iraq's interest at an OPEC meeting.

American officials said today that it was Mr. Zobeidi's efforts to expand his powers that prompted the Americans to crack down.

Mr. Zobeidi was given a copy of General McKiernan's proclamation, American official said, and he was informed by the American military today that he had no authority to appoint anybody.

He was asked to vacate his office at the Palestine Hotel and told to return any property seized by his men. American troops have been stationed near the hotel to provide a measure of security for the reporters who are staying there. The concern was that Mr. Zobeidi would portray the deployments as indications that the American military was actually there to protect him and to support his political aspirations.

Mr. Zobeidi has been meeting with traditional sheiks, with tribal chieftains in gold-embroidered robes and headdresses and with men in business suits. His entourage now includes police and army officers in their old uniforms, the shoulder boards spattered with stars and eagles.

Today, he held a meeting to hear neighborhood grievances, which, as gatherings here do, quickly turned into a cacophony of shouting about relatives lost under Mr. Hussein, seized property since his fall, a lack of security and the loss of electricity. "I don't have a magic wand," Mr. Zobeidi said at several points.

Then he was surrounded by aides and flanked by a Sunni tribal sheik and a Shiite clergyman whose black turban marked him as a descendent of the Prophet Muhammad.

The entourage jumped in and out of a caravan of cars and pickup trucks, stopping at a fire station, a water purification plant and a hospital. It also visited the newly seized headquarters of the Kurdish Democratic Party, headed by the Barzani clan, as well as the Assyrian Democratic Movement, equipped with a purple flag and militiamen in camouflage.

Such is Iraq today: a mesmerizing labyrinth of conflicting interests operating in something close to a void as American generals strive to maintain a minimum of order and a retired American general speaks of building a stable, democratic future.

The American military is also keeping a close eye on the activities of Mr. Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress, who has ensconced himself in a club in Baghdad and is seeking to play an important role in Iraq's effort to restore civil authority.

Mr. Chalabi has enjoyed strong support from Defense Department officials, who say he is committed to democracy in Iraq, a pro-Western foreign policy and the Middle East peace process.

Mr. Chalabi's role could be important as Iraqi political figures meet over the next several weeks to discuss arrangements for a temporary administration as a stepping stone to a democratic government. Some Bush administration officials, however, have been skeptical that Mr. Chalabi, who spent the past few decades in exile, would attract much of a following in iraq. And allied military officials have been concerned that Mr. Chalabi's men are throwing their weight around to build a political base for their leader.

Mr. Chalabi has about 700 fighters in his entourage who were flown to the Iraqi air base at Tallil several weeks ago by the American military at the request of Pentagon officials. American forces then scoured the country for arms and ammunition to equip the fighters so that they could participate in the campaign to oust Mr. Hussein.

American military lawyers ruled that the weapons could be provided to Mr. Chalabi's men without Congressional approval because they were not intended for a foreign government but for a fighting force attached to the American military. Special Forces were assigned to supervise the fighters, who were officially called the Free Iraqi Freedom Fighters.

But the fighting drew to a close before the fighters could join the fray. After American forces took Baghdad, some of Mr. Chalibi's fighters helped capture an aide to Mr. Hussein who was on the allies' most wanted list. But American officials are also worried that some are being reorganized as a private security force for Mr. Chalabi, and they suspect them of setting up their own checkpoints and even detaining Iraqis.

Just a few weeks after helping establish Mr. Chalabi's force, allied commanders are now considering a plan either to demobilize the force or put them formally under allied command, officials said.

Maj. Gen. Albert Whitley, the senior British officer in General McKiernan's command, put General McKiernan's edict into effort at a meeting today with railway representatives.

The allies are trying to restore Iraq's basic services, and its railroad is one of them. The allies are trying to fix the track and ensure that workers' salaries are paid. The aim is to use the railroad to move fuel to power plants and to move food north from the port of Umm Qasr.

As General Whitley opened the meeting at the central train station in Baghdad, he was told by his Iraqi counterparts that Mr. Chalabi's representatives had been in touch with them and had been taking credit for restoring the railroad.

Such claims follow a pattern, allied officials say, in which supporters of Mr. Zobeidi and Mr. Chalibi have sought to claim credit for allied efforts to rebuild the country in order to build political support.

"Nobody has authority unless General McKiernan says so," General Whitley advised. "Mr. Zobeidi and Mr. Chalabi have no authority. If we say you run the railroad, you run the railroad. If anybody comes and tells you differently, tell us. We will ask them to stop interfering. If we have to, we will arrest them."

But after General Whitley left, a vehicle appeared and aides to Mr. Chalabi got out, one witness said. They urged the railroad representatives to work with Mr. Chalabi, according to Thaibit M. Gharib, the director of the railroad.

colinsky

"The majority of people realize we are only going to stay here long enough to start a democratic government for them," he said.

I hadn't realized that democracy was something that could be delegated.

Going off topic a bit but...

I honestly think that America should leave the reconstruction largely to the UN and Iraqi people and focus their attention on countries blatantly flouting such military activity.

Every nation has the right to conduct actions that signify the defense of their nation. The US have gone further in actually invading another nation on the premise that Iraq was a threat to their security. What N.Korea is doing is perfectly legitimate by any law, or concept. The US has NO RIGHT to dictate to another nation, with the possible exception of Iraq, since they've conquered it.

shotamoose

Well, it's been around a month and a half since I started this thread, and I thought it'd be a good idea to see if things have picked up at all in Iraq ...

Those Iraqis who actually believed the US when it spoke of an interim Iraq-led regime by mid-May have been feeling somewhat let down recently. Instead, Paul Bremer (the Third) feels more inclined to appoint "an interim political council whose powers would largely be limited to advising U.S. officials on policy issues and nominating Iraqis to serve in senior positions in government ministries."

Meanwhile in the South, Basra's nascent city council has been dismissed and generally the views of ordinary Iraqis understandably keen for a bit of this freedom and democracy they've been hearing so much about are being ignored.

In the power vacuum left by the collapse of the state, schools and hospitals are being run by the clergy, but if you feel insecure (and eveyone does) you can buy your weapons in the local market (hand grenades only $3 a pop).

The US's idea of economic reconstruction seems mainly to consist of a lot of privatisation (which is a lot easier to push through when there's no government and no opposition) and transferring oil revenues to American companies in exchange for reconstruction services. Oil exports, indeed, are beginning again but where's the money going? Who knows, who cares, tis but a minor quibble.

Meanwhile we're now seeing almost daily attacks on soldiers to the extent that General McKiernan said that "the war has not ended".

It's all a bit of a mess, but it really doesn't have to be. If the US was genuinely interested in Iraq making a peaceful transition to democracy, they would recognise that it can't be brought about by an occupying army. They would get the UN involved, not because the UN always knows best but because it has the staff, the internationally-flavored peacekeepers, the legitimacy to get the job done without arousing nearly as much anger. So why don't they? I'm guessing cos they don't want to share any of what they still think is their prize.

vorbis

I find it amazing that people were expecting such a peaceful transition. We ourselves waged a bloody civil war showrtly after our independence. I'd say give them some time. Also the UN while a worthwhile organisation has not the perfectl record for interventions that is being made out here. UN intervention in Yugoslavia for example was a disaster.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Trebor
now i am not saying that it was right for the americans to go without UN approval but the un has now been shown to be toothless. Because of the veto system there will always be a country that will appose military action against another as one of the 5 permanent states has interests in nealy any country you care to mention. In regards to the US's plans for iraq i believe they think that they can turn it into another isreal, an arab coutnry that they support that are pro american but they will find out the hard way that it will not be possible.

The need for UN approval is overstated. America, as well as other countries have often gone to war without UN approval. It's arguable if going to the UN for approval this time was diplomatically expedient for the reasons you stated above. Rumor is that was Powells insistence. From a loss/gain perspective, strong UN support could have prevented a war. A divided UN that gave Saddam hope all but dictated war.

Thank God the UN is toothless.

As far as Iraqi resent goes, Saddam only kept power by having support, that support hasn't left the country. The war isn't over, especially with Whabist Sunni and Irannian Shiite (smirk) stirring the pot.

This will go on for years, and the only people who can end it are the Iraqis. The Americans know this, its just a matter of the Iraqis accepting it.

xm15e3

Originally posted by vorbis
I find it amazing that people were expecting such a peaceful transition. We ourselves waged a bloody civil war showrtly after our independence. I'd say give them some time. Also the UN while a worthwhile organisation has not the perfectl record for interventions that is being made out here. UN intervention in Yugoslavia for example was a disaster.

When has the UN been successful?

bonkey

Originally posted by vorbis
I find it amazing that people were expecting such a peaceful transition.
...
I'd say give them some time.

But it was the US who told us there would be such a peaceful transition......thats what the issue really is. Its not that what is happening is unsurprising, but that either the US genuinely believed it wouldnt be like this, or deliberately tried to misinform its public, misrepresent the facts, and is now basically trying to dodge the accusations of "but you said....." which are coming back at it.

jc

xm15e3

Originally posted by bonkey
But it was the US who told us there would be such a peaceful transitionj

What American told you that? I talk to "those people" every day and I never heard anything about a peaceful easy solution. Was it a dimplomat? Do you have an exact quote?

Drunk American tourists don't count.

bonkey

Well, either the Americans planned a much smoother transition than what is happening now, or they lied or misled the public with dates by when they expected certain things to be achieved.

You dont need a quote. Either the US planned to have an interim government in place by mid-May, or they didnt. If they did, then what is the reason for the delay, if not that they recognise that things are not going as smoothly as expected? Why these new comments about the cost of rebuilding Iraq in terms of US troops being probably much higher than initially expected?

Either those plans were designed to fail (i.e. they public was misled), or they were expected to work (things are not going as smoothly as planned and as announced).

Are you saying that it was the former rather than the latter, or is there a third option that I've missed...

jc

dathi1

The fact is as I predicted before the war...the Shia want a Shia state...the Kurds a Kurdish state. The US will have to impose their version of democracy with the back up of paid paramilitary's (chalabi etc) to control the oil revenue. Already the wheels of war against occupation is being set with the "one yank a day" campaign taking place in northern Baghdad peripheral towns.

xm15e3

Originally posted by bonkey
....or they lied or misled the public with dates by when they expected certain things to be achieved.

You dont need a quote.

Why these new comments about the cost of rebuilding Iraq in terms of US troops being probably much higher than initially expected?

Either those plans were designed to fail (i.e. they public was misled), or they were expected to work (things are not going as smoothly as planned and as announced).

Are you saying that it was the former rather than the latter, or is there a third option that I've missed...

jc

I'm saying your entire premiss is false. I do not know one pro-war American citizen (including myself) that thought this would be easy or quick. Or that a new shiney democracy would be in place by mid May. In fact the idea is ridiculous.

And yes, I do need a quote. I want to know which member of my representitive government is running around and spouting such BS.

Your being much to cynical. Nobody said it would be easy, and before the war the US wanted to get the UN's help to "Nation Build" (a huge mistake in my opinion) so that our troops would be free to deal with Iran, Syria, and N. Korea. The UN declined.

shotamoose

Originally posted by xm15e3
I'm saying your entire premiss is false. I do not know one pro-war American citizen (including myself) that thought this would be easy or quick. Or that a new shiney democracy would be in place by mid May. In fact the idea is ridiculous.

And yes, I do need a quote. I want to know which member of my representitive government is running around and spouting such BS.

Maybe you missed the bit in my post where Jay Garner said the core of an interim Iraqi government should be in place by mid-May.

And the UN have been succesfully involved in nation-building, in East Timor. Given a strong mandate and enough resources, I think they'd be able to do a pretty good job.

dathi1

so that our troops would be free to deal with Iran, Syria, and N. Korea. The UN declined.

are u taking the piss?

bonkey

Originally posted by xm15e3
I'm saying your entire premiss is false. I do not know one pro-war American citizen (including myself) that thought this would be easy or quick. Or that a new shiney democracy would be in place by mid May. In fact the idea is ridiculous.

And yes, I do need a quote. I want to know which member of my representitive government is running around and spouting such BS.

As shotamoose just pointed out, the quote you required had already been posted to the thread. I didn't feel it would be necessary to point this out as I assumed you had actually been following the discussion here.

jc

Hobbes

Originally posted by xm15e3
When has the UN been successful?

I'll take a wild guess.

Cuba missile crisis?

The UN is designed to maintain peace. Not start wars.

xm15e3

Originally posted by shotamoose
Maybe you missed the bit in my post where Jay Garner said the core of an interim Iraqi government should be in place by mid-May.

And the UN have been succesfully involved in nation-building, in East Timor. Given a strong mandate and enough resources, I think they'd be able to do a pretty good job.

"By the middle of the month, you'll really see a beginning of a nucleus of an Iraqi government with an Iraqi face on it that is dealing with the coalition," the retired general said.

I have no idea how anyone is getting "quick and easy" out of that statement. Beginning... of a nucleus ....of an interim, that doesn't seem to imply peaceful, easy or complete.

East Timor is shaking in it's boots for the day the UN splits on them, and hell returns. Not much of a Nation IMO.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Hobbes
I'll take a wild guess.

Cuba missile crisis?

The UN is designed to maintain peace. Not start wars.

Uh, yah.

What exactly did the UN do during the Cuban Missle crisis? Oh, they gave the Russians a microphone to lie with. That was helpful.

swiss

Originally posted by xm15e3:

What exactly did the UN do during the Cuban Missle crisis? Oh, they gave the Russians a microphone to lie with. That was helpful.

If it averted war, I couldn't care if the Russians told them great big massive lies, with fecking bells hanging off them (© Father Ted - Link to wav)
The point is that the UN provided the appropriate international, (reasonably) impartial forum where the interests of the globe, and not just one or two states were at stake. Now, of course because the US didn't want war just as much as Russia didn't they were willing to sit down and use diplomacy to resolve the crisis at hand.

However, the US did this because, unlike Iraq, Russia actually was a threat to US homeland security. It's easier to be more dismissive of internationally respected institutions when the umbrella of nuclear war is not hanging over you. North Korea has now realised that the US only listens to the UN when it suits their own purpose, and hence has decided to bypass the UN in their dealings with an increasingly belligerent superpower. This is a sad development, since history has shown us that when states begin to ignore international consensus, they begin to display arrogant self interest and begin to act selfishly. The US appears to be quite adept in acting as such.

Beginning... of a nucleus ....of an interim, that doesn't seem to imply peaceful, easy or complete.

It implies a beginning, that a start to democracy and a form of governance acceptable to the people of Iraq would be in place by the given timeframe. Easy... perhaps not. But I suppose if it's not "easy" then it's hardly surprising that the US led administration has failed miserably at it.

bonkey

Originally posted by xm15e3
I have no idea how anyone is getting "quick and easy" out of that statement.

Well, seeing as you studiously refuse to see the point I was making, I'll spell it out for you. If that sounds condescending, then I'm sorry, but you are still compeltely avoiding the issue being raised...and its either deliberate or because I'm not being clear enough.

The US have made some statements about what will be accomplished by when.
They have failed to live up the these statements.

The US has made statements about its hopes to reduce troop presence, which it has then revised to say "longer than expected".

The US has made statements about how it would be better able to manage the WMD investigation, and do so more speedily than the UN etc. Since then it has asked the UN/IAEA to send in "non-inspectors" to so some work that said army (still hoping to reduce its presence real soon now) doesnt have the resources in place to deal with.

The US appointed Jay Garner to take control, and then replaced him for failing to restore civil order. In other words...they expected that, and it wasnt delivered.

The US claimed victory in a war it now claims isnt really over. It announced that the nation was effectively under control....only to turn around and tell us that there is growing resistance in relatively uncontrolled areas.

Now these are either signs that the US expected a much easier job, or that the US lied about how difficult it really expected the job to be. You still havent offered a third option....because there is nothing suggesting that things are going according to plan (unless firing Mr. Garner for failing to do his job sufficiently well in sufficiently short a time counts as "to plan" somehow....but thats a conspiracy for another day).

Note - I did not say "easy", I said "easier".

If you want quotes, go read any of the myriad of threads which have already discussed these points, or have a look at google. For example, give it "Jay Garner Replaced" and have a look at pretty much any relevant hit you get back.

At best, the US have been very cautious about putting specific dates on anything....and rightly so. However, whenever they have supplied timeframes - explicitly or implicitly - they have failed to live up to them in this war.

That is either a sign of duplicity or failure.

jc

xm15e3

The report that Garner was replaced due to failure was from a NY times hit piece (IIRC) based off of an annomys "US Official". If anything, he was replaced due to internal struggling between the State Department and the Pentagon. What is more likely is that Garner is being reassigned. We're gearing up for Iran now, so Iraq is probably being handed over to the State Department (to the Iraqis detriment). Garner is one of Rumsfeld's boys, he isn't going away.

I've noticed many outside the states aren't aware of the duplicity of our State Department. Even when top posts are reassigned by a new administration, there are still career bureaucrats in key position. The result is a State Department that runs counter to many administrations (Especially Republicans), they are also criminally incompetent IMO.

I'm guessing the anonyms US Official that reported this as a shake up due to failure, like most anonyms US Officials, is a State Department hack. Notice is was a Stater that "replaced" Garner.

BTW, it was the career Staters that chose to let the Taliban take over Afghanistan, decided Mao wasn't such a bad guy, and thought the Baathist were better then the Shiites that rebelled in 1991.

I can understand your opinion that things aren't going as planned, I simply disagree there was much of a timeline to begin with. Especially under Pentagon control, they like flexibility. I think you inferred something that wasn't implied. The US media, and probably the international press also, have been reporting their inferences as fact. No supprise there

As far as duplicity of the US goals, you're being very cynical. I understand where that comes from, all I can say is be patient, the liars are almost always outed within five years. Just don't trust CNN.

Sparks

As far as duplicity of the US goals, you're being very cynical. I understand where that comes from, all I can say is be patient, the liars are almost always outed within five years.

Small question - how many lives get lost unnecessarily in those five years?

xm15e3

Originally posted by Sparks
Small question - how many lives get lost unnecessarily in those five years?

Probably less then would have died had the French, Germans, and Russians been able to keep the Baath Party in power. (for oil)

How many Poles died unnecessarily defending Vienna on Sept 12, 1683? How many Japanese would have died if Olympic and Cornet been carried out as opposed to nuking them. The lowest figure I've read is 2 million. It's a dumb, sarcastic, and rhetorical question.

Typedef

Originally posted by xm15e3
The lowest figure I've read is 2 million. It's a dumb, sarcastic, and rhetorical question.

Don't you just love the propaganda figures used to justify 'testing' of Nuclear weapons on civilians.

In my opinion.

Sparks

Probably less then would have died had the French, Germans, and Russians been able to keep the Baath Party in power. (for oil)

Wow. Talk about a neck like a jockey's private parts!
The French, German and Russian interest was in getting their loans repaid, as opposed to oil. In fact, looking at the Iraqi situation from the viewpoint of oil, the US had the most to gain by keeping the Ba'ath party in power right up to the invasion of Kuwait - and then after that, the most to lose by leaving them continue to have control of the oilfields (as the oil was being sold for euros).
And you have to factor in here, the deaths that will be caused by the decision to invade Iraq, the total figure for that hasn't stopped climbing yet, but it's well up over 10,000 so far by some estimates - and that's just direct casualties.

How many Poles died unnecessarily defending Vienna on Sept 12, 1683?

Total casualties on the Christian side: 4,000
Total casualties on the Muslim side: 15,000
Total unnecessary deaths : 19,000 military.
We'll never know how many civilians died, either in the siege or in the crusades/jihads that preceded and followed...

How many Japanese would have died if Olympic and Cornet been carried out as opposed to nuking them. The lowest figure I've read is 2 million.

Doesn't change the fact that there was a japanese surrender on the table when Hiroshima was bombed.
You might be able to argue that Hiroshima was a necessary act.
You cannot reasonably say the same about Nagasaki. A different type of bomb, the full impact of Hiroshima not fully understood, and a surrender on the table - Nagasaki was simply not necessary.

It's a dumb, sarcastic, and rhetorical question.

It's not a dumb question. It's a highly relevant one, and the main one in determining whether a military action was ethical or not - did it save more lives than it cost. Recall Wolfowitz's comments where he stated that the decision to invade Iraq was taken on 13/9/2001, not more than a year later. How could that decision be justified?
It's not a rhetorical question - people are out in Iraq right now, counting the bodies.
Is it sarcastic? I'd go with cynical myself, since there's a reason for asking the question. But it sure as hell isn't an idealistic question.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Typedef
Don't you just love the propaganda figures used to justify 'testing' of Nuclear weapons on civilians.

In my opinion.

Actually I was wrong, our government calculated 8-10 million civilian dead, 400K-800K US servicemen dead. Personally, I don't feel to bad about the bomb. Hiroshima and Nagasaki togather lost fewer than one of our raids on Tokyo...200K.

Propaganda was not releasing these numbers to the American people in 1945. And for good reason.