A view from the Middle East: Iraq could become US' greatest blunder

[Bowfinger]

In case you ever wondered how some of the Arab media see the situation in Iraq, here is an op-ed piece from the English edition of The Jordan Times. I'm going to post the whole thing since it looks like this link may only work for a week or so. There is no copyright notice on the article.

Iraq could become US' greatest blunder
By Ramzy Baroud

The United States' government has missed an opportunity to redeem some disastrous blunders in Iraq. Instead, it preferred to walk the same path chosen by past US governments, in Asia, South America and elsewhere.

The US government defied international law when it invaded Iraq, in a war that claimed the lives of over 6,000 civilians and wounded many more. That's twice as many as those who perished in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Needless to say, the Iraq invasion was and remains an act of terrorism.

While the drafting of international law is often a collective decision where many countries take part, enforcing the law is only a privilege used and misused by countries with powerful armies, who often give themselves the right to interpret laws in ways that serve their own interests.

Consequently, while the United Nations made it clear that the US-British invasion of Iraq was illegitimate and lacked the backing of a legal mandate, US war generals argued that the decision to invade a sovereign country was sanctioned by UN resolutions, or perhaps their personal interpretation of these resolutions.

To convince the American public that discounting the United Nations in launching a war was a necessity, the Bush administration resorted to half-truths and unsupported claims about an imaginary danger that Saddam Hussein's government posed to their national security.

The Americans were even more modest in comparison to the British government. Tony Blair's government claimed that the Iraqis were in fact capable of launching an attack using weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes.

Someone who visited Iraq in 1999 ? where the situation, despite the suffocating sanctions was still better off than today ? I testify that the Iraqi government could not even provide basic services of electricity or water for days on end, needless to say attack powerful countries ? based thousands of miles away, with WMDs.

But since we are told to get a reality check and accept that the invasion is now history, and the subsequent occupation is now a fact, we are urged to merely hope that America has learned from its past blunders. However, such hope is deteriorating everyday.

Some of those who were unclear about the US motives in Iraq got a reality check themselves, when they followed announcements made by top war generals, updating the public on how many oil fields in Iraq were being ?liberated.? The last number of liberated oil fields was 600 before the fall of Baghdad.

While US forces moved very slowly to stop the looting and to quell the chaos caused by their invasion, fully geared US troops were already in charge of the building hosting the oil ministry.

US army administrators in Iraq have offered endless promises to improve the lives of ordinary Iraqis, justifying the slow progress by the enormity of the mission. However, the mission seemed less complicated when the task facing the US administration is to assign dozens of multinational corporations to take charge of Iraq's natural resources. The bidding began before the war was even over, and the seemingly immense task of dividing the Iraqi cake was the only ?cakewalk? that this war has witnessed.

When I visited Iraq a few years ago, along with a large delegation of American doctors and journalists, a population that suffered tremendously under the harsh sanctions imposed by the United States using the UN, welcomed us very warmly.

Two weeks ago, one of our delegation members just came back from Iraq concluding his third visit, this time after Iraq and its oil fields were ?liberated.?

This was his most distressful visit yet, since the Iraq people, known for their untold generosity, were no longer welcoming, but angry and feeling betrayed.

Why shouldn't they? As if the invasion and occupation were not enough, the human rights abuses and the killing of civilians on a daily basis in Iraq, were reminders that the US was in fact little interested in fostering trust with the Iraqi people.

The Iraqis are experiencing a level of humiliation that they have not experienced even under Saddam Hussein's rule.

It was rather funny to see US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld referring to the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners in times of war, after Al Jazeera aired images of American soldiers being questioned in a forceful manner.

Yet, since then, few failed to see the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners of war at the hands of the American and British forces. News of torture and rape are more than rumours, but legitimate reports prepared by respected human rights groups and publications. Maybe the Geneva Convention was not meant to include Arabs, or maybe Rumsfeld alone thinks so.

Now, women in Iraq are afraid to leave their homes after dark due to the lack of security, chaos and anarchy, only enforced by the fact that the US occupation administration is consumed by achieving its own goals. The security and welfare of ordinary Iraqis is certainly not on the agenda, as the United States has clearly demonstrated.

It took no one by a surprise to see a well-organised Iraqi resistance emerging out of the ruins and facing up to the 116, 000 US troops occupying their country.

To justify this mess, the United States is providing easy answers to complicated questions. But neither the publishing of the gruesome images of Saddam's sons, nor the killing or capture of the former Iraqi president himself shall quell the Iraqi resistance. If the issue was the elimination of one individual or the entire ?deck of cards,? or even the deployments of yet more troops, why did the US experience a bitter defeat in Vietnam?

The Iraqi occupation is a colossal disaster that is turning into one of the US' greatest historic blunders. If Bush's cabal possess an average level of wisdom, it would transfer authority in Iraq to true representatives of the Iraqi people, using the help of the United Nations and other Arab countries, to stabilise the volatile situation in the country, as soon as humanly possible.

Any solution other than that would mean the continuation of the bloodbath. The US occupation of Iraq will end sooner or later. Why not end it now before the death toll from the two sides breaks new and devastating records?

The writer is a Palestinian journalist, editor-in-chief of PalestineChronicle.com. He contributed this article to The Jordan Times.

(Emphasis added.)

A couple of thoughts. First, I won't claim that this is unbiased. It is an op-ed piece after all, and I know nothing about the writer. Agree or disagree, it offers insight into what one corner of the world is reading about the U.S. and Iraq. I will say that I occasionally checked The Jordan Times during the initial stages of the war. They do not appear to be as slanted as Al Jazeerah (sp?), certainly no worse than Fox "News". Even that impression may be a product of my inescapable US-centric view of the world.

Second, I found this comment thought-provoking: "Needless to say, the Iraq invasion was and remains an act of terrorism." While the difference is clear in my mind, how do you explain it using objective criterria? How do you justify the difference without falling back on stereotypes, i.e., they're evil and we're good? We both attacked without direct provocation. We both killed thousands of innocent people. We both acted out of what we claim to be a positon of moral superiority.

Before the Bush supporters get their panties in a bunch, I am NOT saying the two are equivalent. (Read that part again and take a deep breath before continuing. You know who you are.) While I disagree with our invasion and feel the innocents were killed without justification, I don't think that is enough to qualify as terrorism. But what is? Put aside your American viewpoint for a moment and think about the objective differences. How would you convince Ramzy Baroud that there is a difference?

So, I offer two topics for discussion, the article itself and the specific statement that our invasion was an act of terrorism. The discussion will be more interesting if we all try to remain civil and on-topic.

 

[Zebo]

You can't justify killing civilians. It's terrorism plain and simple. Hiroshima and Nagasaki terrefied Japanese so much they were forced to surrender. Dreseden, bremen etc etc etc firebombings terrified Germans so much they were forced to surrender. I

It's the side you are on which calls the other side terrorists. The objective person sees it all as terrorism.

Sactions themselves are a form of terrorism. Hurt the civilian population enough in hopes they will force thier governemnt to comply with whatever you will.

 

[UltraQuiet]

You and the rest of the Bush haters should look up the word 'intent' and you'll have your answer.

 

[Tab]

This guy should work for Al Jazeerah, interesting how he claims we called 6,000 Civs. What about Saddam's own troops purposely or attacking thier own people? Anyone rememaber the mysterious bomb that exploded in a market place killing 12 or so? Interesting how CNN showed Iraq's soldier quickly trying to fill the craters in the ground. Now, wouldn't they be really trying to find fragments of the bomb wouldnt they?

Zebo, you should really look into going back into high school and taking western civ. The japs never ever surrendered. They were tought above all the things honor, and that surrendering was worse they dying. You think if trade was allowed saddam would really give a shiat about helping his people?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
You and the rest of the Bush haters should look up the word 'intent' and you'll have your answer.

Rather than empty name-calling, why don't you educate us? How was our intent different from al Qaeda's? Certainly from a U.S. perspective, al Qaeda's intent was terror -- but I doubt that's how they saw it. Can you offer something objective to differentiate the two?

 

[phillyTIM]

Originally posted by: Tabb
This guy should work for Al Jazeerah, interesting how he claims we called 6,000 Civs. What about Saddam's own troops purposely or attacking thier own people? Anyone rememaber the mysterious bomb that exploded in a market place killing 12 or so? Interesting how CNN showed Iraq's soldier quickly trying to fill the craters in the ground. Now, wouldn't they be really trying to find fragments of the bomb wouldnt they?

Zebo, you should really look into going back into high school and taking western civ. The japs never ever surrendered. They were tought above all the things honor, and that surrendering was worse they dying. You think if trade was allowed saddam would really give a shiat about helping his people?

That's the house of Iraq; if it was so friggin' bad over there, then the people should have put up a revolt. A proper revolt, not that thing that happened in 1996. But they haven't.

Again, that's their house, not ours; what goes on in their own country, is not our business. Just because their culture is different from the US's, doesn't necessitate our intervention.

 

[Gaard]

Shock and Awe.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
You and the rest of the Bush haters should look up the word 'intent' and you'll have your answer.

Rather than empty name-calling, why don't you educate us? How was our intent different from al Qaeda's? Certainly from a U.S. perspective, al Qaeda's intent was terror -- but I doubt that's how they saw it. Can you offer something objective to differentiate the two?

Did you really just ask how our intent was different from al Queda? OK I'll play this silly little game. We did not target civilians, al Queda did. We targeted military installations, C and C, etc. Hit them with an unprecedented success rate. The Pentagon, White House, USS Cole all legitimate .mil targets. WTC, embassies, civilian airliners, etc., all acts of terrorism.

BTW the empty name calling started with 'Bush apologist'.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
You and the rest of the Bush haters should look up the word 'intent' and you'll have your answer.

Rather than empty name-calling, why don't you educate us? How was our intent different from al Qaeda's? Certainly from a U.S. perspective, al Qaeda's intent was terror -- but I doubt that's how they saw it. Can you offer something objective to differentiate the two?

Did you really just ask how our intent was different from al Queda? OK I'll play this silly little game. We did not target civilians, al Queda did. We targeted military installations, C and C, etc. Hit them with an unprecedented success rate. The Pentagon, White House, USS Cole all legitimate .mil targets. WTC, embassies, civilian airliners, etc., all acts of terrorism.

BTW the empty name calling started with 'Bush apologist'.

I can't disagree, but when it comes down to it, civilain deaths are civilian deaths; equivocation just clouds the issue.

 

[Zebo]

Zebo, you should really look into going back into high school and taking western civ. The japs never ever surrendered. They were tought above all the things honor, and that surrendering was worse they dying. You think if trade was allowed saddam would really give a shiat about helping his people?

That's aright I just put myself in other peoples shoes. Much easier and gets a better response. In this case Nihon no Ichiban Nagai Hi a history of the surrender of Japan. On Aug 10th a cabinet approved the surrender and his majesty signed it, we continued to bomb them for 5 days unil his majesty finally read the order on the radio per our demand. Terror.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Did you really just ask how our intent was different from al Queda? OK I'll play this silly little game. We did not target civilians, al Queda did. We targeted military installations, C and C, etc. Hit them with an unprecedented success rate. The Pentagon, White House, USS Cole all legitimate .mil targets. WTC, embassies, civilian airliners, etc., all acts of terrorism.

Thanks, I think that's a good start. I don't think it is a complete explanation. We still call it "terrorism" even when it is limited to military targets. For example, the USS Cole was always called a terrorist attack. Also, we attacked a few non-military targets too, e.g., the opening night of "Shock and Awe" and the later bombing of a home or restaurant in a residential neighnborhood. I acknowledge that we thought there was a valid target within those civilian buildings, but that's a fine line.

BTW the empty name calling started with 'Bush apologist'.

Why did you think I was talking about you?

Point taken. I edited my post to say "Bush supporters". Better?

 

[Dari]

wow, now bowfinger is looking at arab opinion for anti-bush rhetoric. These are the same arabs that were lead by sclerotic and autocratic regimes that hated the US, right? Wow.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Thanks, I think that's a good start. I don't think it is a complete explanation. We still call it "terrorism" even when it is limited to military targets. For example, the USS Cole was always called a terrorist attack. Also, we attacked a few non-military targets too, e.g., the opening night of "Shock and Awe" and the later bombing of a home or restaurant in a residential neighnborhood. I acknowledge that we thought there was a valid target within those civilian buildings, but that's a fine line.

It's complete enough for me. I think we call it terrorism because normally the perpetrators are stateless persons. The targeting of civilian leadeship is the targeting of .mil tgts. The Pres., SecDef, Service Secretaries are all legit .mil tgts. Even the Geneva Convention says so.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Dari
wow, now bowfinger is looking at arab opinion for anti-bush rhetoric. These are the same arabs that were lead by sclerotic and autocratic regimes that hated the US, right? Wow.

Aside from broadening your perspective a little, I am inviting you and everyone else to offer your thoughts on why the article is wrong. If you are capable of stringing together two or three sentences to form a coherent thought, you are welcome to join in.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Thanks, I think that's a good start. I don't think it is a complete explanation. We still call it "terrorism" even when it is limited to military targets. For example, the USS Cole was always called a terrorist attack. Also, we attacked a few non-military targets too, e.g., the opening night of "Shock and Awe" and the later bombing of a home or restaurant in a residential neighnborhood. I acknowledge that we thought there was a valid target within those civilian buildings, but that's a fine line.

It's complete enough for me. I think we call it terrorism because normally the perpetrators are stateless persons. The targeting of civilian leadeship is the targeting of .mil tgts. The Pres., SecDef, Service Secretaries are all legit .mil tgts. Even the Geneva Convention says so.

On the other hand if 25 or so civilians got together and financed thier own weapons and expense to Afgahisntan/switzerland (whereever Osama and Saddam are hiding) went on a hunt for them eventually killing or capturing them they would be called national heroes and would go on to make millions on the book and movie circut. All depends on POV. I read Perots book about eagles daring talks about this.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dari
wow, now bowfinger is looking at arab opinion for anti-bush rhetoric. These are the same arabs that were lead by sclerotic and autocratic regimes that hated the US, right? Wow.

Aside from broadening your perspective a little, I am inviting you and everyone else to offer your thoughts on why the article is wrong. If you are capable of stringing together two or three sentences to form a coherent thought, you are welcome to join in.

Well, I will congratulate you none-the-less for searching far and wide for anti-US rhetoric. Where will you go next, France? BTW, I stopped caring about arab opinion from people who don't matter (arab journalists who are bullhorns of the ruling regimes). Furthermore, an atavistic society that not only suppresses 55 percent of its population (the women) but who's entire region (from Morocco to Iraq) prints and copies as much books as the country of Greece intellectual capacity is circumspect.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dari
wow, now bowfinger is looking at arab opinion for anti-bush rhetoric. These are the same arabs that were lead by sclerotic and autocratic regimes that hated the US, right? Wow.

Aside from broadening your perspective a little, I am inviting you and everyone else to offer your thoughts on why the article is wrong. If you are capable of stringing together two or three sentences to form a coherent thought, you are welcome to join in.

Well, I will congratulate you none-the-less for searching far and wide for anti-US rhetoric. Where will you go next, France? BTW, I stopped caring about arab opinion from people who don't matter (arab journalists who are bullhorns of the ruling regimes). Furthermore, an atavistic society that not only suppresses 55 percent of its population (the women) but who's entire region (from Morocco to Iraq) prints and copies as much books as the country of Greece intellectual capacity is circumspect.

Why thank you. I learned a long time ago that if I limited my education to Fox "News" and Rush Limbaugh, I would develop an unbearably ignorant and self-aggrandizing view of the world. For example, one might become a biggot who believes all Arabs are ignorant and unimportant. I might also believe that foreign media only publish anti-US rhetoric instead of learning how to become aware of and consider others' points of views without uncomfortably threatening my own beliefs.

Anyway, I digress. Do you have anything to contribute that is on-topic?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dari
wow, now bowfinger is looking at arab opinion for anti-bush rhetoric. These are the same arabs that were lead by sclerotic and autocratic regimes that hated the US, right? Wow.

Aside from broadening your perspective a little, I am inviting you and everyone else to offer your thoughts on why the article is wrong. If you are capable of stringing together two or three sentences to form a coherent thought, you are welcome to join in.

Well, I will congratulate you none-the-less for searching far and wide for anti-US rhetoric. Where will you go next, France? BTW, I stopped caring about arab opinion from people who don't matter (arab journalists who are bullhorns of the ruling regimes). Furthermore, an atavistic society that not only suppresses 55 percent of its population (the women) but who's entire region (from Morocco to Iraq) prints and copies as much books as the country of Greece intellectual capacity is circumspect.

Why thank you. I learned a long time ago that if I limited my education to Fox "News" and Rush Limbaugh, I would develop an unbearably ignorant and self-aggrandizing view of the world. For example, one might become a biggot who believes all Arabs are ignorant and unimportant. I might also believe that foreign media only publish anti-US rhetoric instead of learning how to become aware of and consider others' points of views without uncomfortably threatening my own beliefs.

Anyway, I digress. Do you have anything to contribute that is on-topic?

what I'm trying to tell you is that arab editorial opinion is equivalent to those of $0.10 Romanian hookers. It's not worth arguing over.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Dari
what I'm trying to tell you is that arab editorial opinion is equivalent to those of $0.10 Romanian hookers. It's not worth arguing over.

I won't pretend to match your expertise with $0.10 Romanian hookers. Thanks for stopping by.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dari
what I'm trying to tell you is that arab editorial opinion is equivalent to those of $0.10 Romanian hookers. It's not worth arguing over.

I won't pretend to match your expertise with $0.10 Romanian hookers. Thanks for stopping by.

And I wouldn't want my name in the same sentence as romanian hookers and arabs whose penchant for conspiracy theories are matched only by the french. Later alligator

 

[etech]

Do you believe that the press in Jordan is free and open to publish anything that they want?

You might want to do some more research if you do. In this case there is also a Ramzy Baroud who is editor of the PalestineChronical. He reported on the "Jenin massacre". Do you remember that little incident of fair and unbiased reporting?

I see this as the same type of reporting. There are people who want to stir up the Arab street even if it means using lies and fabrications to do it.

The question is, how do you counter those lies?

 

[sandorski]

The opinions of Arabs is fair game IMO. Remember, your troops are in their neighbouhood, if they think you are terrorists, the killing of US troops will continue as long as they are there. If the Iraqi's feel the same way, they will merely revert back to an Anti-US state after(if not before) US troops leave. You don't win "hearts and minds" by pissing them off.

 

[etech]

Will articles by this Palestinian using 'fair and unbiased' words such as Bush cabal help or hurt the situation in Iraq?

Does he even care that those words will make the situation worse and hurt Arabs?

 

[Gaard]

Did anyone refute the points of the piece, or did everyone dismiss it on the basis of it's author?

 

[zephyrprime]

Did anyone refute the points of the piece, or did everyone dismiss it on the basis of it's author?

The latter of course! Don't give us too much credit here on AT Politics and News.