Debate on the Iraq war (3)

Here is the reply of the other person to my comments:

http://www.nonviolence.org/comment/viewtopic.php?p=42127#42127


I am still not quite catching your exact answer to my question. You talk about having a dialogue with the Iraqi people. What then? It seems you might be saying we should just leave and let them fend for themselves. Are you saying that? What specifically should we do at the present time in terms of military policy? Remember... A lot of the Iraqi population is helping us build a good infrastructure and get the new government off the ground. It also does not seem plausible to me that the majority of the country would want a dictatorship or other totalitarian state. The people who support such things are the people who seek power in them, not the oppressed to be. What exactly should we do now?
You also seem to be suggesting that I think the fact that Iraq was a dictatorship is a sole reason for my support of the Hussein regime overthrow. It's not what I have been saying. It is the totality of the things I listed that add up to the justification, except the Guld War I continuation consequence alone was justification based on the Hussein regime's failure to meet their one way out. However, turning every dictatorship on Earth into a democracy would be a good thing. I just have some hesitation about saying, "Hey, let's go!" War is a very big deal.
The Hussein regime did attempt to assassinate Bush, Sr. when he was out of office and visiting Kuwait. They also failed to meet the demand we placed on them to avoid continuation of Gulf War I. They were also a terrorist government that supported other terrorist organizations, which were sworn enemies of the United States. Therefore, the Hussein regime overthrow was not preemptive.
One thing you and I will apparently continue to disagree on is the notion that sovereign governments who oppress their people are minding their own business. All innocent humans are equal, and no government has any business doing with them as they please. We do have a moral right to rescue the innocent.
_________________Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward... - John Kerry, 12/15/03


My Reply:

I understand you want our discussion to focus on the current situation in Iraq by discussing if anything can be done to improve it.
In your latest comments, you give one of the strongest argument for not withdrawing the coalition troops, the argument of avoiding "the worst scenario": Civil war, anarchy, and eventually a new form of authorian regime. Here are your first questions.


"I am still not quite catching your exact answer to my question. You talk about having a dialogue with the Iraqi people. What then? It seems you might be saying we should just leave and let them fend for themselves. Are you saying that? What specifically should we do at the present time in terms of military policy?"

My reply:

One thing is sure: By invading Iraq, overthrowing the Saddam Hussein regime and attempting a "de-Baathization" of Iraq by disolving both the Iraqi army and the Iraqi admnistration, the US-led coalition was setting up the base for a (temporary?) take-over of both political and military administration of the country in a highly centralized manner.
It made perfect sense for Colin Powel to declare a few months later: "Do you want us to hand over power to the Iraqis? Who ????" There wasn't (and still isn't much of) a group of Iraqis who could declare themselves ready to take resposability for the country's affairs. And then, it does make perfect sense to say that Iraq "needs" the coalition to help run the country for a few more years.

Before telling you what could be good initiatives to improve the situation on the ground, let me tell you once again:
1. The question of legitimacy of the political power is central to decision-making about the future of Iraq.
2. As we already discussed, the US-led invasion was not justified.
3. The anger and resentments of a growing number of Iraqis to Coalition forces come from this feeling that they are unfairly occupied by Foreign nations (with a different culture), the fact that this controversial occupation has led to a civil war (yes.. civil war) between those who are cooperating and those who are resisting the occupation, the fact that they suffer from a broad range of economic hardship in that context (hardship that may be even worse that during the Saddam H. rule), the fact that the US troops don't hesitate to use massive military resources to deal with the insurgency causing tens of thousand of civilian victims (killed by US gunfires only, see "www.iraqibodycount.net"), the fact that the US troops behaved like nazis at the Abu Grahim prison (at the very place where the Saddam regime used to torture Iraqi people).

Now, what should be done??!! Good question.
1. Acknowledging mistakes and war crimes against the Iraqi people: Punishing those responsible from the bottom (guilty soldiers) to the top (you see what I mean). So far, punishing soldiers was done to some extent. By no means, all of the war criminals have been put to shame. Remember that if Iraq had been invaded by a second-rank military power (say: Italy), the international communauty would have called this military power a "rogue country" and decided to isolate this country (and eventually attack this agressor militarily). The fact that USA is the sole military super-power of the world doesn't mean by itself that it has good ethical standards to decide when to wage a war "in the interest of the world".
2. Once this is done, you can expect more cooperation from the international communauty in the fields of peace-keeping, financial help to reconstruct Iraq etc.
3. Initiating a conference on Iraq by inviting both the coalition forces leaders, the Iraq "transition" government, the Iraqi insurgency leaders (if you don't invite them, they will not stop fighting any form of political power), other UN security council nations who would be present with a mediation role.


"Remember... A lot of the Iraqi population is helping us build a good infrastructure and get the new government off the ground. It also does not seem plausible to me that the majority of the country would want a dictatorship or other totalitarian state. The people who support such things are the people who seek power in them, not the oppressed to be. What exactly should we do now?"

My reply:

Yes, some Iraqis do help reconstruct THEIR country, and they do not wish to bear more anarchy and hardship. They just want to survive the current civil war. They have a pragmatic approach.
By no means you can consider this cooperation to be a proof that the majority of the Iraqis approved to see THEIR country invaded and occupied by foreign powers.
The US has no right to decide what kind of political regime the Iraqis want. Go and check in a dictionary what "democracy" means. Democracy is a political system ruled "by the people". If you define democracy by a political system "for the people" (ruling in the interest of the people even if the people disagree with its policies), you imply that the US knows better what is good or not good for Iraq that Iraqis. This way of thinking is, in essence, the source of imperialism (systematic domination and exploitation of a country by another country or an empire).


"You also seem to be suggesting that I think the fact that Iraq was a dictatorship is a sole reason for my support of the Hussein regime overthrow. It's not what I have been saying. It is the totality of the things I listed that add up to the justification, except the Guld War I continuation consequence alone was justification based on the Hussein regime's failure to meet their one way out."

My reply:

The totality of things didn't amount to a threat to USA. And that's what matters. Gulf war I was waged after the invasion of Koweit. Then came the 12 years of economic sanctions and tensions between the enforcement of the UN resolutions and the Saddam H. regime. During the months preceding the invasion of Iraq, the UN inspectors were allowed back into Iraq (thanks to US pressures, this is correct). They constantly denied the US assertions that "time was running out" and that they were not making any more progress. They were asking for more time. They were experts! Then the Bush administration starting to quote doubtful intelligence reports to justify an invasion.


"However, turning every dictatorship on Earth into a democracy would be a good thing. I just have some hesitation about saying, "Hey, let's go!" War is a very big deal. "

My reply:

Yes, absolutely. I agree with you. Another way to say this is: The consequences of starting a war against a dictatorship (not an aggressor) bring more injustice than justice. The costs are not worse the benefits (both in economic and in moral terms). Turning every dictatorship on Earth into a democracy is positive if it comes from the will of the citizens of this country.
No matter what, practically, these citizens can or cannot do to overthrow an authoritarian regime, it is unethical from a foreign nation to invade and pretend to rule in the interest of these citizens.
There is, off-course, a consensus that the case of genocide brings a moral dilemma for other nations: Either they interfere with this country's affairs (they will probably save many more lives that they will kill). Either they adopt the frustrating stance of watching a genocide unfold (but arguably they avoid making matters worse by interfering with domestic issues). Don't forget that the Clinton administration did nothing to stop a genocide in Rwanda (and no other nations dared to say anything about this genocide anyway!)


"The Hussein regime did attempt to assassinate Bush, Sr. when he was out of office and visiting Kuwait. They also failed to meet the demand we placed on them to avoid continuation of Gulf War I. They were also a terrorist government that supported other terrorist organizations, which were sworn enemies of the United States. Therefore, the Hussein regime overthrow was not preemptive."

My reply:

This is a very shaky demonstration of self-defense to say the least.
First of all, I would like to know more about the assassination attempt to Bush Sr. Anyway, even if there was evidence that Saddam H. ordered to kill him. This was more than 10 years ago! Saddam H. was also claiming that the US was attempting to have him killed one way or another. Remember the first bombing of Baghdad was aimed to kill Saddam H. in his palace.
About the terrorist organizations... Saddam H. and Osama Bin Laden were enemies! Osama Bin Laden's network was financed by the CIA in the 1980s (when he was fighting against the Soviet puppet government in Afghanistan). Bin Laden even wanted to defend Saudi Arabia against Saddam H. in 1990, after the Koweit invasion. What turned Bin Laden against USA was the first Gulf War. Please get more information from terrorism experts. These are all well-documented facts.
By the way, 2 years ago, Bush Jr. was setting up the new philosophy of "preemptive strikes". I guessed he did believe in these theories when he took the decision to attack Iraq. Therefore the main argument at that time was the claimed "probability that Iraq had WMDs and can use them against US"! No need to look for evidence of an Iraqi agression against USA. The Bush administration didn't need them to justify the war.


"One thing you and I will apparently continue to disagree on is the notion that sovereign governments who oppress their people are minding their own business. All innocent humans are equal, and no government has any business doing with them as they please. We do have a moral right to rescue the innocent."

My reply:

Yes, you are right and I will attempt to justify my position.
Compassion is fine. However the use of violence (war implies violence) to repair injustice (such as those that occur constantly in a dictatorship where there is no such thing as a rule of law) is controversial. It can only apply when other non-violent means (such as diplomacy, economic sanctions etc.) are powerless.
There is an inherent contradiction in the Bush admin.'s goals of "making democratic Iraq a model to follow in the Middle East". As democracy is a political system "by the people", a political system imposed by another nation (with the justification of doing it in the interest of these people) is non-democratic in essence. I already made this point and I'm sorry to say it again.
There are other issues such as the cultural gap between Christian America and the Muslim Middle-East. Even if the Americans believe that their political model is based on universal values (I believe it!), the Muslim nations have a different notion of what is political legitimacy. Take it as a fact: Only Turkey is close to being democratic. But Turkey already had experienced a significant political development after the First World War. The country became ruled by a secular political system. It is an exception in the Muslim world. Islam is not only a religion but also a political entity. Muslim religious leaders have always had strong political powers. How can you reconcile these local values with American-style democracy?_________________Sailom