If I tell you to walk down a street that is dangerous, am I morally culpable when you get mugged? After all, I didn't mug you. The muggers did.
I agree with the people who say that the muggers are morally culpable than the person who gave the directions--rather, the ones who say that the chap who engages in ethnic cleansing or sets off a car bomb in a crowded marketplace is morally worse than the US.
But I don't agree with those who say that we are therefore absolved of all responsibility. Our invasion created the conditions in which bombings, kidnappings, and so forth that weren't taking place before, now are. It seems ridiculous to me to say that we have no responsibility for the innocent people who have been terrorized by these thugs.
This is not an argument over whether we are bad or not. It's an argument over whether we have any responsibility for mitigating the bad results of our actions. I'd say we obviously do. Taking in some of the people who have been forced to flee the violence seems like a no-brainer.
It's your fault and what do you mean "we," paleface?
By this arguement, are you in fact accepting repsonsibility for your "hidden law" torture?
By this arguement, are you in fact accepting repsonsibility for your "hidden law" torture?
Megan,
Although this isn't directly related to the point above, just war theory is pretty clear about how responsible we are for Iraq. Under most circumstances, the aggressor bears the moral burden in war because all the chaos and destruction and death that accompanies war flows from the decision to initiate hostilities. Your bomb-setting chap has a greater opportunity to commit that act because we dismantled the Iraqi state. Is he morally culpable? Yes, of course. But the fact that those acts would have the space to occur was something that should've been factored into our decision to go to war and they pretty clearly weren't.
The question of how to handle our responsibility is a difficult one. In a perfect world, we'd behave like a morally upright nation and stay until we've managed to repair the damage we've done to the region.
That seems unlikely to happen. What we're looking at are mounting costs that are not producing the outcomes we'd like in the hoopty car that is Iraq (a new transmission costs how much?!). Compounded with the all the misstatements and obfuscations that the Bush administration used to sell this losing war, it seems possible (even probable) that a Democratic president will simply hang this albatross around Bush's neck and make the economically sound decision to ignore sunk costs and get out.
As for the refugees, that's a no brainer and one of the most cost-effective and direct ways to address the suffering that we've caused.
We are taking responsibility. That's why we're still there. We also pay families for innocent lives we took by accident. Obviously if we "get out now" we'd be shirking a responsibility, although it still may be the right decision.
Now make up your mind. Which do you want more. For us to leave? Or for us to take responsibility?
I'm not going to say which is the right choice. It's up to the American voters because neither choice is perfect. The best we can do is come to a consensus as a nation and move on with whichever decision is made.
Have a spare bedroom? How much room is there at Crawford? You are responsible (as noted above pale face). I hope the efforts to create new Iraqi neighborhoods are focused on areas that were most strongly for Shrub and your debacle. This is not our mess. This is your mess.
Megan,
If we are to count all the death and damage made possible by our invasion, shouldn't we also count all the harm prevented by the same invasion?
The problem here is that it is easy to count deaths that happen--because they happen. How do we count all the people not gassed, not fed feet-first into chippers etc? Further, aren't we directly responsible for all the lives saved by taking power out of the hands of baathists, and yet only indirectly responsible for the lives that continue to be taken by same?
Nelson wrote:
"Which do you want more. For us to leave? Or for us to take responsibility?"
Well when you put it like that... I may just stop beating my wife and go take responsibility for some Iraqis! kthxnbai!
We are responsible but in a way like the guy who drives drunk and smashes into a family on the way to dinner. You don't expect the drunk driver to actually perform the surgery to fix the resulting injuries. He can't and is ill-equipped.
We smashed into Iraq but there is nothing we can do to fix the mess we made. The current US policy is little more than denial of the absolute mess we made by pretending we can hang around and fix it. It is a fiction. And we will spend untold billions just to keep ourselves from acknowledging the full scale of the horror we helped bring about.
Our invasion created the conditions in which bombings, kidnappings, and so forth that weren't taking place before, now are.
No, this is just wrong. The main "condition" that has lead to most of the "bombings, kidnappings, and so forth" is sectarianism. And the United States didn't create sectarianism in Iraq.
Moreover, I don't know why Megan uses the straw man argument that those arguing against her conception of responsibility believe that the US is "absolved of all responsibility". Has anybody said that the United States has no responsibility for what's happening in Iraq? That's ludicrous, so maybe she can point to an actual example of someone making that argument (since, you know, she doesn't actually link to anyone making that argument).
So maybe Megan can engage the actual argument instead of setting up a gigantic straw man to knock down.
Iraq is riven by sectarianism which long predated the US invasion. The proximate cause of most of the violence today (as well as other problems, like displacement of people) is that sectarianism. Prior to the US invasion, sectarian violence of the type we see today was controlled, to some extent, by Saddam's government (which itself was sectarian, and used violence in a sectarian manner, but we'll leave that aside). But Saddam's government wasn't going to last forever - whether we eliminated it or it fell in some other manner, eventually it would have gone away. And then you'd still be left with intense sectarianism and no genocidal, fascist government to keep it in check - meaning that, in all likelihood, we'd be seeing the same sectarian violence in Iraq whether or not we had invaded. The only thing we affected was the timing of that sectarian violence.
As far as refugees go, it still may not be the right choice to let them in:
If they are refuges because we did something to them, some of them may want to take revenge.
Therefore it would be imprudent to let them in. Even if only 1% would prove harmful, it is too much. It's not a nice "morally perfect" thing to say, or reason to base actions on. But better safe than sorry. We could compensate other nations to let them in, or we can make it safe for them to return to Iraq. But our citizens would never forgive a president who let in a group of probable malefactors because it makes him (or her!) "feel better" about the war.
Now for the ones seeking refugee status because extremists killed their families so they helped our forces counter the extremists but are fearful for their own lives after we leave... *those* refugees we should welcome with open arms.
Actually, Al, the main "condition" that has lead to most of the "bombings, kidnappings, and so forth" is a lust for power. And the US did not create a lust for power in Iraq. So the US is not responsible.
Of course, I don't expect Al to take the next logical step, which is to recognize the fact that Iraq's brutal sectarianism is a product of the fact that three historically unconnected regions were welded together by the British Empire, and that the only time the "country" of Iraq has not been riven with internecine warfare was during a time of stability enforced by a brutal dictator. (A brutal dictator who, it should be noted, was armed, funded and diplomatically defended by the United States for decades, a point which no historian, conservative or liberal, seriously disputes.) And I really don't think that Al will take the next step after that, which is to realize that perhaps what's really required in Iraq is for Western superpowers to stop trying to enforce their visions on the country and to allow the people of the country to control their own destiny, for good or bad, as we do for the large majority of the nations on earth.
Posted by rickm
At least Megan is being dragged, kicking and screaming, to the point of confronting her complicity and enabling. These two? Jeebus! I can find Nazi propaganda that is almost verbatim. Do these two "geniuses" have any idea that most Germans thought the invasion of Poland was in response to "Polish aggression" until the end of the war? Probably not. Had to be done to protect the German people and anyone sympathetic to the Nazis. Poland was full of Jews and communists. Pathetic. Pardon me while I vomit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Himmler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
I'm with Al. I don't think we caused the sectarian strife, but rather triggered something that was going to happen sooner or later in any case (e.g., once Saddam died, perhaps after an interregnum when one of his sons ruled).
Think Yugoslavia: whole groups itching to get at each other, but prevented from doing so by an iron boot on their necks. Once the iron boot is removed, it's on.
Laying the blame for what happens on the party that removed the iron boot seems a bit harsh. Blame Churchill and the British (for including three mutually antagonistic groups in one country), blame the groups themselves, blame the Iranians (for stirring the soup and arming the terrorists) and then blame us. Our motives are the closest to pure that we're going to find in this.
"Our invasion created the conditions in which bombings, kidnappings, and so forth that weren't taking place before, now are."
Add to that list, of course, the U.S.'s torture of detainees, many of whom are innocent, and almost none of whom have been granted fair trials with which to determine their actual culpability for crimes or acts of violence.
"It seems ridiculous to me to say that we have no responsibility for the innocent people who have been terrorized..."
Especially when "we" are a prominent center-left journalist who actively supported the aggressive and optional war, and whose support enabled the war's prosecutors to describe the war as a bipartisan action whose supporters constitute a broad consensus from across the political spectrum, and even moreso whenwe" write articles defending torture in certain circumstances, such as:
"If terrorists must be tortured -- and I am unwilling to state that there is no circumstance ever under which I could condone it -- then it should happen in dark rooms..."
http://www.janegalt.net/archives/004028.html
Sure, Megan, under those circumstances, I'd agree that "we" bear some responsible for what follows.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Of course, I don't expect Al to take the next logical step, which is to recognize the fact that Iraq's brutal sectarianism is a product of the fact that three historically unconnected regions were welded together by the British Empire, and that the only time the "country" of Iraq has not been riven with internecine warfare was during a time of stability enforced by a brutal dictator.
Well, the sectarianism wasn't created by the British Empire, only the fact that the sectarianism is within the same country. If the British hadn't cobbled together Iraq into one country, does Freddie think that the various sects would all be getting along harmoniously? If the British hadn't done so, we might have violence among three or more separate countries instead of ethnosectarian violence among three amin groups within one country. (After all, there was, what, a million killed in a war between Shia/Persian Iran and Sunni-led/Arab Iraq.)
So I don't know why the British are supposed to primarily responsible for the violence by cobbling together Iraq into a single country.
A brutal dictator who, it should be noted, was armed, funded and diplomatically defended by the United States for decades
Oh, and this is asinine and false. Saddam was "armed, funded and diplomatically defended" primarily by the Soviet Union, not the United States. I mean, even a basic grasp of the facts would be helpful.
At least until the fall of the Soviet Union. When was that? I forget. A basic grasp of the facts would be helpful.
"How responsible are we for Iraq" you ask?
By "we" I assume you mean those who supported the invasion to begin with (like yourself), right?
Because my conscience is perfectly clear.
...And Freddie just about hits it out of the park.
The fact is that the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites in Iraq will be much better off in the long run if we just get the hell out of their way. Yes, in the short run it will be a disaster. But right now, a short-term disaster is preferable to a long-term one.
Not nearly enough attention is paid by Americans to the effect that arbitrary line-drawing by the European imperial powers has had on the rest of the world. The fact is that because of the arbitrary line-drawing by those powers, there are relatively few real nations in Asia and Africa - just a lot of countries composed of bits and pieces of nations.
At least until the fall of the Soviet Union. When was that? I forget. A basic grasp of the facts would be helpful.
Are you trying to say that we "armed, funded and diplomatically defended" Iraq after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991? Really?
Al,
Good to see your intellectual dishonesty on display again. It was not stated that the US was "primarily" armed by the US, only that the US supplied Saddam with arms. Which is unequivocally true. As usual, conservatives show their penchant for lies and intellectual dishonest.
Yay, Anonymous trolls calling people Nazis and equating toppling an actual genocidal dictator with a war of annexation and genocide.
(And "complicity" and "enabling" removal of said dictator are compared with German support of an attempt to ethnically cleanse all of Europe and make it into a German slave colony and economic self-sufficiency zone!
One wonders if he realizes anything about either World War 2 or the current War in Iraq other than that both are wars, and yelling "Nazis!" makes his friends think he's clever?)
Megan, it's time to close comments or start banning people. Seriously.
It's gotten to the point where it's quite impossible to actually discuss anything like intelligent people, because of all the noise blasting over the signal.
I understand, to a point, your reluctance to do anything about it - but I suggest taking a page from Oliver Kamm's playbook. You don't owe anonymous trolls an audience, and I'm sure The Atlantic has no objection (given the comments policy) to some vague efforts to raise the level of discussion above the lowest possible common denominator.
(And to the original topic, I'm in full agreement - the United States does have responsibility to mitigate the ill results of its actions in Iraq.
I also agree with the various commenters (who did more than call names), in that the US is more an incidental than final cause of, say, Iranian-financed terror bombing or long-suppressed-and-inflamed sectarian or tribal conflict.
In summary, I find no moral culpability for that strife, but that doesn't affect a moral duty to mitigate it.
To extend the troll's comparison in a useful way, the Allies were not culpable for damage caused to the towns of France in its liberation ... but were still morally bound to help mitigate the suffering where possible.)
Oh, Please! Only with that Occam's Clown Beard on could anyone consider this poor twit to be a "center-left journalist". She's an American libertarian, for chissakes! To the right of always wrong.
Sigivald,
Blow me.
Go back to Stormfront.
P.S. I'm keeping your money.
Al wrote:
" If the British hadn't done so, we might have violence among three or more separate countries instead of ethnosectarian violence among three amin groups within one country."
Which makes sense, if you think that there's a lot of violence between the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
People tend to live at lot more peacefully when they're not fighting over the same power structure.
If I tell you to walk down a street that is dangerous, am I morally culpable when you get mugged? After all, I didn't mug you. The muggers did.
I agree with the people who say that the muggers are morally culpable than the person who gave the directions--rather, the ones who say that the chap who engages in ethnic cleansing or sets off a car bomb in a crowded marketplace is morally worse than the US.
Well, if I order men to proceed into an ambush, and then years after it becomes apparent it's an ambush I still won't order them to withdraw, yeah - I pretty much am just as responsible for those deaths as the enemy is.
That puts the Bush administration in the driver's seat in terms of responsibility for the US military deaths for the last several years.
So who shares in the moral responsibility of the administration? Everyone who voted for them or cheerleaded for them.
At this point, the question of our moral responsibility to our own citizens and our own armed forces is pretty clear, and the question of our moral responsibility to the citizens of Iraq is murky. Shouldn't we follow our clear responsibility?
Especially since it is precisely the fact that large numbers of Iraqis simply do not trust us to sincerely try to "fix" anything that had made the situation untenable. When the party you claim you are trying to help perceives your "help" as an attack, is it really morally sensible to impose that help on him?
http://patterico.com/2005/01/02/a-very-easy-quiz/
Vee Must Bury Ze Past Because I May Have SPRECHENED SUMZING SCHTUPID! And Shut Down Ze Komments Before I Schprechen Again!
"Oh, and this is asinine and false. Saddam was "armed, funded and diplomatically defended" primarily by the Soviet Union, not the United States. I mean, even a basic grasp of the facts would be helpful."
Not to get off on a tangent, but Al ads the word "primarily" on his own so as to go about objecting to something not actually declared.
That said, Saddam's early rise and consolidation of power was, in fact, abetted by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, first in the CIA's assistance of Saddam's attempted assasination of then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim in 1959, and then in the CIA's assistance in the Baath Party's cold-blooded murder of thousands of Iraqi communists in 1963.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2849.htm
Presumably, Megan McArdle would tell us that the U.S. assisted in those murders "because our heart is pure."
The above, of course, is in addition to the miliatry intelligence that the U.S. regularly shared with Saddam's regime after Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, as well as Ronald Reagan's June 1982 National Security Decision Directive that the U.S. would do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran. (Howard Teicher, who served on Reagan's National Security Council staff: "CIA Director Casey personally spearheaded the effort to ensure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war").
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Kinda like we armed the Soviets and fed them intel to keep them from losing war, and for exactly the same reason. That doesn't mean the U.S. necessarily endorsed either country, just that our interests temporarily coincided. Rather like the way that those of the Democratic Party and Islamofascists coincide right now.
Or Bosnia and Croatia.
"I can't help but feel partly responsible."
Good Lord. I had never heard of Ms McArdle until she decided to take Glenn Greenwald on. Her defense on not reporting more on the giant constitution shredding machine that is this Bush Administration is that she's an economics expert and doesn't feel that she's qualified to comment on much else. That's all and well. Yet, just reading this current page of postings, she dares to hold forth on many other topics other than 'economics'. ('opinionating', the quality and depth of which I could fairly easily type whilst sitting at my keyboard in my underwear)
You'd do better to stick to your chosen field of expertise Megan (and please stop trying to take on 'Glennzilla'; you're like sooo way out of your league)
The US bears a lot of responsibility for what happens going forward. It is an invalid argument to say that the sectarian violence would have happened in any case, once Saddam died or otherwise. That may or may not be true, but it is not certain.
The question at hand is what is the best way to meet this obligation? On this, I can see several different options, but it is unclear which, if any of them, are best. I think a quick, unconditional withdrawl is going to result in an orgy of violence as the different factions vie for control and oil, but will this result in more long term casualties than the US maintaining an effective military presence? This is a tough question.
"Kinda like we armed the Soviets and fed them intel to keep them from losing war, and for exactly the same reason. That doesn't mean the U.S. necessarily endorsed either country, just that our interests temporarily coincided."
The original assertion was not that Saddam Hussein was "endorsed" by the U.S.
The original assertion was that Saddam Hussein "was armed, funded and diplomatically defended by the United States for decades."
And that assertion was true.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
p.s.: The last sentence of your post is simply beneath contempt, and I don't say that as a member of the Democratic Party, because I'm not one.
Yancey, I usually see eye to eye with you, but on this one I must respectfully disagree.
The enmity between Sunnis and Shia goes back a millennium and a half, since the death of Mohammed, and violence between them was as predictable as that between Hindus and Muslims when the British left India in 1948, or between Bosnians, Serbs, and Croats after the collapse of Yugoslavia. I think only a miracle would have avoided the paying off of some old scores in Iraq, and the first such payment to extend across sectarian lines would ignite general sectarian violence.
Occam-
It might be worth pointing out that enmity between Hindus and Muslims in India is essentially, oh, about 200 years old. Prior to colonization by the British, communal violence was rare, and always took a backseat to class or tribal conflicts.
IIRC, approximately 4% of Saddam's arms came from the US. The vast majority came from the USSR and France (no time to look this up right now, but I too was surprised our proportion was so low).
Why do you take umbrage at the last sentence of my earlier post? It's absolutely true. A clearcut victory for the U.S. in Iraq would be a nightmare scenario for both Democrats and Islamofascists. The Democrats wouldn't get a sniff of the White House for a long time.
Put it another way: are Democrats hoping for and working toward American success in Iraq? Of course not. No one would argue that. Well, neither are the Islamofascists. So their interest do in fact coincide in this respect.
I think Siggy has a point. But why just shut down the comments. Shut down this whole blog. Let The Atlantic ponder their mistake and get someone worth reading in this spot. It might attract a better set of readers and commenters.
Lost in all this back and forth is the fact the Republicans will deal with anyone if it will benefit them politically back home or abroad. That's a bad way to conduct foreign policy. Reagan dealt with Iran. The Same Serious People turned around and supported Saddam in his war with Iran. Then they turned on Saddam because he invaded Kuwait. Initially, Bush I said, "So what?" Something changed that, probably Thatcher. No wonder his kid thought his father was a bigger wimp than himself. Then an Iranian agent, Ahmed Chalabi, sold them several pigs in a pokes over the intervening years and here we are today, having removed Saddam for no other reason than that's what the Iranians wanted. Played like fiddles. Clearly, none of these people should ever be given more governmental power than the local dog cacther, the best elected office for any libertarian.
Rick, I'll take your word for it, but it doesn't matter. For whatever reason, when the British left, sectarian violence was as predictable as the sunrise.
The funny thing is that, under this definition, every country that supplied two bullets to Iraq even once over a 25 year period "armed" Saddam. So that includes Canada, France, Germany (West), Spain, Italy, UK, etc.
Yet, somehow the US has been singled out by the left as especially morally culpable for the "arming" of Iraq, even though the US supplied 1% of Iraq's arms from 1973-2002 while France supplied 13% and the USSR/Russia 57%.
I think a quick, unconditional withdrawl is going to result in an orgy of violence as the different factions vie for control and oil, but will this result in more long term casualties than the US maintaining an effective military presence? This is a tough question.
Yeah. Unfortunately it is. I fundamentally find it difficult to believe that the US can accomplish anything of great value in Iraq. I think the plausible scenario that makes the strongest case for US troops staying would be a scenario in which, if we leave, Iraq turns into Lebanon, whereas, if we stay for another 10-30 years, it turns into the Philippines -- a weak, poor country with ethnic strife, rampant corruption and a ruling class too Americanized to have a strong stake in the success of their own nation, but better off than Lebanon with its perennial civil war.
But it's just as likely that a US presence isn't making much of a positive difference at all or is in fact having a strong negative effect on the country's ability to resolve its political composition in a sustainable way that's based on authentic internal interests, rather than outside American interests. It's entirely possible that the presence of US troops has prolonged Iraq's civil war and that the whole thing would have been settled 2 years ago, without any greater violence than has actually occurred, if US troops weren't interfering.
Occam
My point is that communal violence in India was predictable after the British left largely because one of the ways that Britain controlled the subcontinent was by doing everything in their power to create solid religious identities and then to pit those identities against each other. And that really prevents India from being analogous to Iraq, I think.
It is an invalid argument to say that the sectarian violence would have happened in any case, once Saddam died or otherwise. That may or may not be true, but it is not certain.
I don't see how it not being "certain" matters. It was damned likely.
IIRC, approximately 4% of Saddam's arms came from the US. The vast majority came from the USSR and France (no time to look this up right now, but I too was surprised our proportion was so low).
That would be "officially". Neither you nor I will ever know how much and through whom.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Write trash. Attract flies.
I fundamentally find it difficult to believe that the US can accomplish anything of great value in Iraq.
What about Afghanistan? Is it your opinion that the US can not accomplish anything worthwhile there either? If not, what distinguishes the two countries? If so, do you also support an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan?
brooksfoe,
I am on the fence when it comes to a continued US presence, but I would openly support it if someone would lay out a cogent plan that resulted in a much more peaceful Iraq that arises from this continued presence. I have always thought partition of the country is going to be the outcome when we leave, but a bloody partition that is going to leave losers nursing grudges for generations. If someone would lay out a plan that leads to a more peaceful, equitable partition, then that is a plan I could get behind. To date, no one in power has offerred this.
That would be "officially".
There is nothing in the exceprt you post at all about the United States "arming" Saddam's government. The excerpt appears to discuss how vigilantly the US enforced its export control laws over foreign government's efforts to prevent a foreign subsidiary of a private company to sell helicopters.
"Why do you take umbrage at the last sentence of my earlier post? It's absolutely true. A clearcut victory for the U.S. in Iraq would be a nightmare scenario for both Democrats and Islamofascists."
I take umbrage with it because:
a) It seems to imply that the Democrats are hoping for the murder of innocent people, which I find an ugly implication to make.
b) I find it no more plausible than the notion that the Republicans' interests coincide with the Islamofascists. A terrorist attack in the U.S. between now and November would be a godsend for the "tough-on-terror" candidate, John McCain, and would dramatically improve his chances of victory. But I'd be no more gently disposed to those trying to make political hay out of the observation that the GOP's interests are interlocked with the Islamofascists than I am with your attempt to score a political point against the Democrats with the assertion that their interests are aligned with the Islamofascists.
"Put it another way: are Democrats hoping for and working toward American success in Iraq? Of course not. No one would argue that."
But some would argue that Democrats (some of them, not all of them, or perhaps even most of them) are working for an end to American bloodshed in Iraq, and an end to the American shedding of Iraqi blood in Iraq, and that both of those goals are more important goals to work for than the goal of "American success in Iraq" (whatever it is that goal is supposed to look like, exactly, and notwithstanding the question as to whether "American success in Iraq" is even possible).
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Did you get banned from Drum's blog or are you lost again, Al. Did the scent of decaying flesh bring you here? Where there's rotting waste, that insect will lay some eggs.
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2007/05/richard_sale_on.html
Played. There are one too many Chalabi like maggots here.
"The funny thing is that, under this definition, every country that supplied two bullets to Iraq even once over a 25 year period "armed" Saddam. So that includes Canada, France, Germany (West), Spain, Italy, UK, etc. Yet, somehow the US has been singled out by the left as especially morally culpable for the "arming" of Iraq, even though the US supplied 1% of Iraq's arms from 1973-2002 while France supplied 13% and the USSR/Russia 57%."
a) There have been certain assistances provided Saddam and his regime for which the US has, in fact, been especially morally culpable. This includes the U.S. providing the Baath Party with a list of thousands of Iraqi communists in 1963, knowing full well that those thousands of Iraqi civilians would be detained and executed by the Baathists without trial (which is what, in fact, happened). That list wasn't given to Saddam by the USSR. It came from us.
b) I'm an American, and as such I focus on the actions carried out by my nation, with my tax dollars, in my name. That's 'cause I don't want crimes carried out in the past by my nation, with my tax dollars, in my name, to be repeated in the future by my nation, with my tax dollars, in my name.
Were I a Canadian, or a Spaniard, or a German, I'd be on a Canadian or a Spanish or a German blog, pissing and moaning about crimes carried out by the government of (whatever country I belong to), and urging others to join me in assuring that those Canadian/Spanish/German crimes not be repeated.
But, again, I'm an American, which leaves me with a special responsibility to be alert to the actions of the American government.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
"... Taking in some of the people who have been forced to flee the violence seems like a no-brainer."
In the sense that only somebody with no brains would support it maybe. The same fine judgement that caused you to to support the war has led you to believe that admitting millions of undesirable potential terrorists to the US is a good idea. It is not. And even worse this time the victims will be Americans when the suicide bombers start attacking US trains, subways and busses.
"If I tell you to walk down a street that is dangerous, am I morally culpable when you get mugged? After all, I didn't mug you. The muggers did."
I think Megan got the analogy wrong. Let's try one with more accuracy:
If Megan said you are in immediate danger from the infestation of diseased rats next door, is she responsible your ill-though reaction gets you arrested and sued? After all, she didn't burn down your neighbors house. You did.
Yes, she did insist you had to do something right away. Yes, she spoke against those who questioned your plan. Yes, they were right and the rats weren't full of aids and cancer.
Maybe there's more rats now that the house is damaged, but this isn't Megan's fault.
She was speaking her mind. She's saying something different these days, so you can't hold her responsible for what she said in 2003.
I think that analogy fits your "hidden rules" of behavior.
I think the focus on culpability is unproductive because it assumes that we should do nothing or something to help people who need help simply based on guilt. Meanwhile, there is a refugee crisis that needs to be addressed and sorted out. The US, especially with the assistance of Iraqi govt oil funds, seems to be in a position to work towards this effort. I would not go so far to say that we need to give visas to everyone...that's probably not even possible. But we need to have a system in which people's basic needs are met, and then go from there to sort out how they might either be repatriated or whatever. I don't think this can be a black and white issue, but it seems some people would rather take potshots from their ideological camps rather than figure out feasible solutions for a problem that is actually happening right NOW.
Taking in some of the people who have been forced to flee the violence seems like a no-brainer.
If there are people who left Iraq because they were in imminent danger of being murdered then sure. But that's a tiny minority of the refugees; most just left Iraq because it is a generally dangerous place to live. Well, they should go back to Iraq and help us try to solve that problem.
I also don't think we should take ANY of the Sunnis; if they hadn't support Hussein they wouldn't be in the mess they're in now.
And at least until January 20th, 2009, they're not going to.
Why is it so hard for you to get behind immediate withdrawal?
-the bloodbath we're supposedly preventing is going to happen anyway
-there is no political solution pony in sight
-the "security forces" we have spent 5 years training still run away rather than fight their sectarian brothers
-the New Model Army won't be able to defend Iraq's borders for at least another 6-10 years, we hear (not months, years)
-meanwhile the steady drip of American troop casualties continues
-in the midst of a recession that nobody knows how bad it's going to be, the President has just asked for another $100+ billion to flush down the rathole
What does it take? 5000 dead American troops? 6000? 10000? 58000?
Why does liberalrob remind me of someone who would have abandoned the D-Day landings at D+3 hours?
GERMANY NEVER ATTACKED US! HOW MANY DEAD WILL IT TAKE? US OUT OF EUROPEAN AFFAIRS NOW!
The fight is already on.
Win it.
"What does it take? 5000 dead American troops? 6000? 10000? 58000?"
librob,
it'll take however much the American Middle Class has left to give..
"The fight is already on.
Win it."
Posted by Jason Van Steenwyk | April 11, 2008 4:11 PM
JVS,
where are you stationed?
Jason,
The fight is indeed already on.
But the fight is a strategic one against those forces in the Islamic world that reject modernity. It is not a fight to prove anything one way or the other in Iraq.
If the way we have fought against rejectionism Islam to date is actually harming, and not helping, our long-term prospects for achieving some sort of Fukuyama permanent equilibrium in the Middle East, it makes absolutely no sense to continue our present course of action merely to satisfy losers with nationalist dicks who might not be able to get it up if they think the US "lost" in Iraq.
I think it is fairly clear that the actions of the Bush administration as a whole serve to justify the worst of our enemy's anti-US propaganda, and that W took every lie ever told about the US and made them true. The FIRST step one should favor, if one thinks "the fight is on", is a hard push on the reset button. Even if that hurts the adolescent sense of national pride of rednecks.
If the interests of a nation were well served by aggressive war, authoritarianism, secrecy, and torture, the USSR would still be around. It's not. Why are we taking lessons on strategic methodology from losers that we bitchslapped up one continent and down another?
So, the US armed Saddam?
(rolls eyes)
Riiiiiight.
That is why the Iraqi army was using M-16s, Abrams tanks, Bradleys, F-16s and 155mm howitzers, as opposed to AKs, T-72s, BMPs, SCUDs, various Soviet SAMs (Sa-6,7,8,9,12,18,among others) MIGs and 152mm guns,(and South African G5s).
I would be remiss if I did not mention the Sooper Seekrit chemical weapons program we have continued to maintain after our Nixon outlawed any further research, transportation, and production in 1969, a ban that still remains in effect. This program allowed us to secretly furnish Saddam with those munitions he used on the Kurds.
So far as whether our decision to invade has been a net good for the Iraqis, just maybe you would like to poll the Kurds or the Marsh Arabs.
It is without question that very nearly every shooting war the US has engaged in (and those we have ignored) is a direct result of of having to clean up a mess the Euro colonial powers left after WWII. (Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq anyone?)
"So, the US armed Saddam? (rolls eyes) Riiiiiight. That is why the Iraqi army was using M-16s, Abrams tanks, Bradleys, F-16s and 155mm howitzers, as opposed to AKs, T-72s, BMPs, SCUDs, various Soviet SAMs (Sa-6,7,8,9,12,18,among others) MIGs and 152mm guns,(and South African G5s)."
Freddie's original assertion (that Saddam Hussein "was armed, funded and diplomatically defended by the United States for decades") was, is, and continues to be, true.
Folks here have enjoyed rephrasing the assertion in slightly different words and then contesting their self-selected rephrase. I assume they do that 'cause folks here cannot manage to contest the original assertion, itself.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Patrick wrote:
"Freddie's original assertion (that Saddam Hussein "was armed, funded and diplomatically defended by the United States for decades") was, is, and continues to be, true."
Perhaps you are correct, and I am misinformed. For my own personal enlightenment, list for me the weapons systems, combat platforms, or even small arms furnished to the Saddam regime by the United states.
Marcus
As an afterthought, I can recall one. I leave that question unanswered as an student exercise. :-)
Marcus
Patrick,
I did not mean to imply that the Democrats support murder and terrorism in Iraq. But the Democrats (e.g., liberalrob) want us out of Iraq, and so do the Islamofascists. So their interests do in fact coincide.
That is not to say their interests are coextensive. Islamofascists probably don't have a position on national healthcare, or the minimum wage, or affirmative action. But on U.S. involvement in Iraq, the two groups have exactly the same policy: getting us out.
Is that even debatable?
Patrick Meighan,
I'm glad you are able to see through the deception and intellectual dishonesty that conservatives like Al enjoy typing. It seems that, not having a position that is supported by evidence or facts, the tactic used by Al and other conservatives is to simply lie or misconstrue an argument in a purposeful way in order to create a strawman or red herring or whatever deception to draw the argument away from the fact that he or she is wrong. I believe this is indicative of the bankruptcy of conservatism at the moment, and I've curiously not seen one poster try to argue otherwise.
In response to Senator Kennedy who was essentially saying it was our fight and not the Iraqis, General Petraeus pointed out that the Iraqi armed forces had recently been taking 3 times the casualties we had in the fight to which might be added a similar level of casualtiies in the Sons of Iraq, the local area defense forces. These forces are fighting for, in part, a humanistic liberty for their country. Once we establish that we are committed to not abandoning them as we did the Vietnamese then the issue you raise is a priority. In the meantime, the suspicious among us see it as a backdoor way to get us to abandon our larger resposibility
Just for the record, between intentionally lying about what Glenn Greenwald said AND being a cheerleader for the mass-murder of over 1 million innocent man, women, children, and babies - Megan McArdle's responsibility (along with all her cronies in the mainstream media) for the mass-murder and torture of innocent Iraqis and US troops is far, far worse. But that doesn't in any way absolve her grotesque lying about the facts Glenn Greenwald pointed out.
Although note that Iraq was a terrible mess in 2003 as a result of a 1991 war and sanctions that we really insisted upon and supported. I think those things were good actions but Iraq was a mess and _something_ -- something _strong_ -- had to be done. "Smart sanctions" would've been nice, a war was evidently not so nice, maybe there's other possibilities -- but I tend to agree with Ms. McArdle on the question of our responsibilities and certainly that's always been a factor for me in thinking about, should we do this war? what do we do now? do we owe the Iraqis something?
In fact I'd be curious to hear Ms. McArdle think aloud on how this idea she describes above influences the larger question of going to war in the first place.
Although the United States may not have been the primary source of Saddam Hussein's military power, the United States and the United Kingdom provided substantial military aid (including chemical weapons and biological weapons and technical assistance) to Iraq during the war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980's, and the United States (often working through the CIA) used allies in the Middle East, allies in Western Europe, and independent arms dealers to funnel additional U.S. funds and military hardware to Iraq during this same time period. Refer to "Arming Iraq and the Path to War" by John King, U.N. Observer & International Report (31 March 2003) for some of the sources Mr. King used to compile his chronology. Additional information about this topic can be found in "Arming Iraq: How the U.S. and Britain Secretly Built Saddam's War Machine" by Mark Phythian (1996).
This information doesn't answer the question about how to resolve the mess we created by invading Iraq, but comments that the United States only furnished "1%" or "4%" of Iraq's military machine must be based on FOX news sources.
Also, comparing our invasion of Iraq to our liberation of Europe in World War II is nonsense. After the United States was attacked by japan at Pearl Harbor, the United States declared war on Japan, and then Germany declared war on the United States before the United States declared war on Germany. Ari Fleischer didn't understand this either.
Blaine, I'll give you a shot at the same question, to wit...
"...list for me the weapons systems, combat platforms, or even small arms furnished to the Saddam regime by the United states.."
Prediction? Same answer as Patrick's.
(crickets)
Marcus
FWIW: Arms sales to Iraq, 1973-1990 from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
Over this period here are the sources of Iraq's arms:
68.9% USSR and Warsaw Pact
12.7% France
11.8% PRC
0.5% U.S.
Sorry, but them's the facts, if you believe that right-wing think tank, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
"For my own personal enlightenment, list for me the weapons systems, combat platforms, or even small arms furnished to the Saddam regime by the United states."
According to Howard Teicher (who served on Reagan's National Security Council staff), the U.S. "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing US military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required."
In 1982, Reagan legalized direct military assistance to Iraq (which is to say, Ronald Reagan took Iraq off the terrorism watch list in March of '82), resulting in more than a billion dollars in military related exports. Over the opposition of several Republican Senators, the Reagan Administration agreed, in December of 1982, to support the sale of 60 Hughes MD 500 "Defender" helicopters to Saddam (the Defender had been used by our nation in Vietnam in various ways, including as an armed scout helicopter equipped with TOW anti-tank missiles, and the U.S. has also deployed an anti-submarine version of the Defender with a search radar, magnetic anomaly detector and the capability to carry lightweight torpedoes). Those "Defenders" were delivered to Iraq by the end of 1983. The Reagan Administration also approved the sale of 8 Bell Textron AB 212 military helicopters equipped for anti-submarine warfare and 48 Bell Textron 214 ST utility helicopters (sold for "recreational" purposes).
http://www.iran.org/tib/krt/iraq_921027.htm
The U.S. also approved the shipment of anthrax strains to Iraq beginning in 1985, under license from the U.S. Commerce Department.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n4_v62/ai_20452303
The New York Times also reported on August 18th of 2002, in a front-page story headlined, "Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq Despite the Use of Gas" that, according to anonymous US "senior military officers," the Reagan Administration covertly provided Saddam's regime with "critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03E0DB133DF93BA2575BC0A9649C8B63
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
0.5% U.S. in toto. That's it.
Marcus,
That ringing noise in your ears isn't crickets.
Patrick,
Excellent work in quickly providing links. Though it is funny that it wasn't necessary to refute the dishonest Marcus, as Al had already defended the assertion that the US armed Iraq by providing statistics that demonstrate that the US armed Saddam, as did many others.
Nice try playing fancy footwork, but further arguments on this subject only further illuminate the depths of lies and dishonesty that is conservatism.
0.5% U.S. in toto. That's it.
From the link above:
United States
Bell 214ST Helicopter 1987-1988 (31)
Hughes-300/TH-55 Light Helicopter 1984 (30)
MD-500MD Defender Light Helicopter 1983 (30)
MD-530F Light Helicopter 1985-1986 (26)
Total sales: $200 MM
I wonder what Megan would think of the Milgram Experiments...
With respect to World War II, I meant to refer to our liberation of Western Europe because we obviously did not liberate all of Europe.
With respect to U.S. military aid to Iraq, Occam's Beard is referring only to conventional arms sales directly from the United States. With respect to the request that I name specific weapons systems, that is a red herring, but I will refer Marcus Marcus to the affadavit (dated 01/31/1995) filed by former NSC official Howard Teicher in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Plaintiff) v. Case No.:93-241-CR-HIGHSMITH CARLOS CARDOEN, FRANCO SAFTA, JORGE BURR, INDUSTRIAS CARDOEN LIMITADA, DECLARATION OF a/k/a INCAR, HOWARD TEICHER SWISSCO MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. EDWARD A. JOHNSON RONALD W. GRIFFIN, and TELEDYNE INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a, TELEDYNE WAH CHANG ALBANY (Defendants).
Sorry, conventional arms sales directly from the United States, as opposed to what?
As opposed to UNconventional weapons provided by us to Iraq or conventional weapons provided indirectly to Iraq either through complex arms deals using other countries as middle men to funnel arms or by approving and encouraging other countries to provide weapons, either conventional or unconventional.
Patrick wrote:
"Freddie's original assertion (that Saddam Hussein "was armed, funded and diplomatically defended by the United States for decades") was, is, and continues to be, true."
To which I replied...
"Perhaps you are correct, and I am misinformed. For my own personal enlightenment, list for me the weapons systems, combat platforms, or even small arms furnished to the Saddam regime by the United states."
I note that of the several original assertions by
Patrick, I took issue with one. That we armed Iraq. I you want to talk about "funded and diplomatically defended," we can go there, but I never addressed that, so your rebuttals on those issues are off-topic.
For the record, I think there are arguments, with which reasonable men can disagree, on both sides of that issue, with respect to the amount that we did fund and defend Iraq, and the advisability and morality of those actions.
But that was, and is, not the point of discussion. My point is that some folks toss in along with that hoary old chestnut is we armed them, also.
Congratulations - you found the helos.
My compliments.
Now, do you know what that helicopter is and does? It has military variants, and has been widely exported to many countries in both civilian and military versions. The 60 light helos were sold to Iraq (in the civilian version) with their assurance that they were for civilian purpose only. (Yeah, I know.) one of the key factors in letting the sale proceed was that the choppers were so small and light as not to be eligible for export control under the current Dept. of Commerce regulations.
Similarly, the other helos you mention (what most civilians would call Hueys)were sold in small numbers, and in civilian models) The Iraqis never used them as the US did, in combat models like the TOW variants, for very good reasons like they never had TOWs. (The Iranians did, as they were able to reverse engineer their own variant)
Just about any aircraft of any type can find some sort of military use, as some of the passengers on 9.11.01 could affirm, were they here today. The same choppers that can give a ride to an offshore rig for some roughnecks can haul some commandos to a firefight.
A Toyota truck can haul mujahideen around, a crop duster can spray Sarin, and I can use a shotgun in a war effort.
But to equate selling choppers of the type you can see every day doing TV reporting, customs duty, tourist joyrides, and marine mammal population studies (NOAA uses them for that)with "arming Iraq," well, that seems to me to be a bit of a stretch.
Marcus
Yeah, I get that, but how could one possibly get a handle on that? Debating nebulous figures various people pull out of their nether regions would make determining the number of angels that could dance on a pinhead a rigorous quantitative exercise.
Freddie's original assertion (that Saddam Hussein "was armed, funded and diplomatically defended by the United States for decades") was, is, and continues to be, true.
The United States was responsible for less than 1% of Iraq's military funding during Saddam's time in power. The overwhelming majority of it came from the Soviet Union and its satellites (e.g. Czechoslovakia), with almost all of the rest coming from France and China. Our ally in the region was Iran. We tried to lure Iraq away from the Soviets once Iran turned against us at the end of the 70s, but we were never their major supplier or supporter.
Do a Google search on the Swedish government's study of who armed Iraq. SIPRI was the name of the outfit, if I recall correctly.
Btw, I believe the term "unconventional weapons" usually implies NBC and now cyber warfare. Not sure what you take it to mean.
"You broke it, you bought it."
A lot of this may have happened eventually if we hadn't invaded. The fact is it is happenening now as a direct result of our invasion.
As for refugees , we already did take in a fair number . In 1996-97, after the failed Kurdish uprising . There's quite a few in this area . Hasn't been any problems , and in fact has been a definite positive . Mitigated (by a little) the loss of population that we experienced otherwise.
This area was a designated refugee resettlement area for a long time . It's never been a problem in my lifetime . Bosnians,Kurds, and Somalis ( all 3 groups - Muslim) are are just the latest in a long line.
Mike, that's good news. Of course, problems with refugees don't arise in the first generation, but rather the second, after the Democrats work their grievance/identity politics magic, so we'll see in 20 years how good an idea this was.
Which raises the broader question: why is it, exactly, that we're expected to take in refugees from all over the place? Even ardent liberals cannot maintain we have any responsibility for Bosnians, Kurds or Somalis, so why are we on the hook?
I agree with the people who say that the muggers are morally culpable than the person who gave the directions--rather, the ones who say that the chap who engages in ethnic cleansing or sets off a car bomb in a crowded marketplace is morally worse than the US.
But I don't agree with those who say that we are therefore absolved of all responsibility.
The semantic content of this post seems to be that Megan doesn't agree with something said by an empty category of people.
Megan we smashed up Iraq to secure bases in the middle east and maintain control of the oil. We take responsibility for smashing up Iraq and the (likely) million plus deaths, 4 million refugees and so on. As Powell said we own it.
At the same time the individual bombers, kidnappers, and so on, are responsible for the acts that make up this whole--it is not a zero-sum game. There is a vicious circle in action with a proliferation of evil. It is very bad news. The longer we remain in denial--and I see now that Glenn was quite right--the worse it becomes. Vastly better to face it, set about fixing it (not trying to salvage pride) and move on.
If the imposition of sanctions and the invasion and so on had been *truly* motivated by a desire to look after the wellbeing of Iraqis, in which case we would have thought much harder about what we did (and not/i> done it), listened to Shinseki and so on (and not tried to do it on the cheap). None of this is true. We are in no way comparable to the person who gave the directions. The person who gives the directions--unless there was a carelessness factor in, for example, directing someone through a mugging hotspot, is not at all culpable for the mugging. But this is not true of us in the case of Iraq so the analogy is deceiving.
We were clearly motivated by self interest and our actions clearly precipitated the holocaust we have seen.
To the commenter who asked me "where are you stationed?" I'll ask, what are you hoping to establish by that question?
Are you suggesting that people who aren't members of the uniformed services or Iraq war veterans themselves should shut up?
Are you subtly trying to imply that I'm a chickenhawk?
Where are you going with that line of questioning, precisely?
"so why are we on the hook?"
Because we can. :)
The problem is the 2nd generation? What a load of crap!
No, it isn't, as grownups will recognize. The immigrating generation is grateful to escape the hellhole in which they were born. In the second generation, adolescent rebellion becomes convolved with a romanticized version of the home country they never knew, and any and all frustrations they experience now become the fault of the host country. Voila! The problems begin.
To see this, look at Obama. Obama's father farted him off and returned to Kenya, but Obama is all misty-eyed about Dad and Africa, even though Dad obviously couldn't be bothered to cross the street for young Barack. Meanwhile, Barack craps on Grandma and raised him when no one - and I mean, no one - wanted him.
The same psychodynamic plays out with immigrants generally. It's the second (or perhaps the third) generation, which takes the host country for granted, and is problematic in terms of loyalty.
Jason wrote:
"Where are you going with that line of questioning, precisely?"
Absolutely nowhere.
As the tired old law school maxim says... If you can argue the law, argue the law. If you can argue the case, argue the case. Otherwise pound on the table.
The table is really taking a beating today. :-)
After all, we are talking about folks who evidently sincerely believe that a country that sold about a half a percent of its military is as culpable as the rest of the industrialized world that sold to it the balance.
Talk about a willing suspension of disbelief. :-)
Marcus
"After all, we are talking about folks who evidently sincerely believe that a country that sold about a half a percent of its military is as culpable as the rest of the industrialized world that sold to it the balance."
I wonder if you can provide some quotes from posters saying exactly this.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Patrick, my friend, quit digging. :-)
Several posters have links on the topic of the relative contributions of various countries to the Iraqi military machine, but in case you missed them,
here is another...
http://tinyurl.com/8dq2p
Now, spend some time there, and then sack up and answer me - who armed the Iraqis?
Marcus
Megan:
As I recall, this whole thing started when GG stated that the media should spend more time covering major issues rather than Obama's bowling and Edward's hair. You, in turn stated that
a) the media has to cover the fluff over the substance because the audience wanted it, and would not read reporters who refused to cover the fluff, and
b) You write about economics, not politics.
Well, Megan, just about everything you have posted THIS WEEK has been about GG's issues, and not about economics.
How many readers have you lost so far?
Check your site hits - are they down?
Have you in fact lost readership by covering a meaty political story for a week?
Do you think that spending one post a week, at random, on a meaty news story, would lose you your readership?
If not, then why not try it, and REALLY prove GG wrong.
You could even choose stories concerning the economy.
Marcus:
"Patrick, my friend, quit digging. :-)
Several posters have links on the topic of the relative contributions of various countries to the Iraqi military machine, but in case you missed them,
here is another...
http://tinyurl.com/8dq2p
Now, spend some time there, and then sack up and answer me - who armed the Iraqis?"
You're using WIKIPEDIA as an unimpeachable source???
You are entirely responsible for Iraq, McArdle.
Enjoy your bloody hands.
God knows Wikipedia is not unimpeachable, but if you have better numbers, impeach already!
Particularly in this case, when Wikipedia is merely citing the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which hardly sounds like a Republican affiliate, yes?
And you, DFH, are entirely and personally responsible for the Ukrainians starved to death, the Poles murdered in the Katyn Forest, those murdered in suppression of the Hungarian Revolution, the boat people, those murdered in the Cultural Revolution, those murdered trying to escape socialism in East Germany, those murdered in Cuba, or who died trying to escape...and the list goes on.
Enjoy your bloody hands. The difference is that you can't claim good intentions.
Marcus and Occam,
If I sell you a knife I am arming you, regardless of whether someone else sold you a howitzer. The US did arm Iraq under Saddam, though certainly not to the extent some other countries did. If you want to argue that we didn't it would be better not to point out sites that prove otherwise.
"Patrick, my friend, quit digging. :-) Several posters have links on the topic of the relative contributions of various countries to the Iraqi military machine, but in case you missed them here is another... http://tinyurl.com/8dq2p Now, spend some time there, and then sack up and answer me - who armed the Iraqis. Marcus"
Marcus,
Many different nations did, including the United States of America. However, as a citizen of the United States of America, and given that the United States of America is a democratic republic acting, theoretically, at my behest, I feel that I have a special responsibility to acknowledge and decry the crimes or errors committed by my government, if for no other reason than to help prevent similar crimes or errors from being committed by my government in the future. I feel that this is true even if other governments have committed even more grievous crimes than my own.
I hope that you can understand the difference between that and your flat declaration that the posters here (including, assumedly, myself?) believe that the United States "is as culpable as the rest of the industrialized world" in the arming of Saddam Hussein.
No one here on this blog has claimed the latter. At least not that I have seen.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Absolutely right Occam! All those hippies running around in 1940 bear full responsibility for the Katlyn massacre. Damn time travelin' hippies.
People are using charts on conventional arms sales to downplay United States military aid to Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Conventional arms sales to Iraq that were directly from the United States were not a major part of Saddam Hussein's military arsenal, but during the 1980's, the United States played a significant role in assisting Iraq to obtain conventional weapons from other countries and from independent arms dealers, the United States played a significant role in assisting Iraq to obtain materials for chemical and biological weapons, the United States played a significant role in directing funds to Iraq that were used to purchase conventional weapons and materials for chemical and biological weapons, the United States played a significant role in making arrangements and funding for spare parts for Iraq's Soviet-bloc armaments, and the United States provided significant direct military technical assistance to Iraq.
Read the full affadavit (dated 01/31/1995) filed by former NSC official Howard Teicher in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Plaintiff) v. Case No.:93-241-CR-HIGHSMITH CARLOS CARDOEN, FRANCO SAFTA, JORGE BURR, INDUSTRIAS CARDOEN LIMITADA, DECLARATION OF a/k/a INCAR, HOWARD TEICHER SWISSCO MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. EDWARD A. JOHNSON RONALD W. GRIFFIN, and TELEDYNE INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a, TELEDYNE WAH CHANG ALBANY (Defendants). Refer to "Arming Iraq and the Path to War" by John King, U.N. Observer & International Report (31 March 2003) for some of the sources Mr. King used to compile his chronology. Additional information about this topic can be found in "Arming Iraq: How the U.S. and Britain Secretly Built Saddam's War Machine" by Mark Phythian (1996). Get me a security clearance, and I will get you more data from the Presidential Libraries of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
None of this information solves the mess we created by invading Iraq, but disowning the extent of U.S. responsibility for helping Saddam Hussein is dissembling.
Esp. for James Collier, and any other google ignorant or lazy researchers that cannot read a reference link on a wiki page....
Go to SIPRI. That's the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, a genuine hotbed of neocon warmongering, redneck thinking.
I am going to write this out for you, step by step, real slow, so you don't confuse yourself.
Go to this page:
http://tinyurl.com/44fnku
There you will find a form. It will have several boxes.
The first is labeled "Suppliers."
Choose "all"
The next is labeled "Recipient(s)"
Choose "Iraq"
The next step is a tough one, 'cause there are TWO boxes, used to input a range of dates in years.
I used 1979 until 1993, but hey, make yourself happy, and tweak it however you want.
Next select which weapons systems you are interested. For purposes of this discussion, I would select "All."
Those choices will generate an eight page PDF document.
Among the hundreds of fighters, tanks, and arty pieces, furnished with examples by what I think is every industrialized nation that HAS a domestic arms industry, on page six, is this entry...
(reformatted a bit here for more facile reading)
Supplier USA
Recepient Iraq
(30) Hughes-300/TH-55 Light helicopter
Part of $25 m deal; officially bought for civilian use, but taken over by Air Force;
(30) MD-500MD Defender Light helicopter Part of $25 m deal; officially bought for civilian use, but taken over by Air Force;
(31) Hughes-500D version Bell-214ST Helicopter Originally part of order for 45 for civilian use but taken over by Air Force
(26) MD-530F Light helicopter(26) Officially bought for civilian use, but taken over by Air Force
Saying that the US is culpable in arming Iraq would just about be like blaming a hardware store owner for selling some burglars a big screwdriver they used to pop open a door and subsequently shoot some homeowner.
Do you seriously mean to argue that the US should never sell overseas any material, tool or equipment that can be converted to a conceivable military use to a questionable regime?
What we sold Iraq was noise in their procurement signal.
Marcus
The McArdle Family Theme - 2008
Crack that whip
Give the past the slip
Step on a crack
Break your momma's back
When a problem comes along
You must whip it
Before the cream sits out too long
You must whip it
When something's going wrong
You must whip it
now whip it
into shape
shape it up
get straight
go forward
move ahead
try to detect it
it's not too late
to whip it
whip it good
When a good time turns around
You must whip it
You will never live it down
Unless you whip it
No one gets their way
Until they whip it
I say whip it
Whip it good
I'm not going to get involved in the debate over the arming of Saddam (FWIW, I've long thought and continue to think that our role in arming Saddam has long been overstated. Frankly I think the claim lack much credibility, and largely undermines the case against continuing the war by coming across as a "Blame America First" argument. I say this as someone who is entirely opposed to this war and the unconscionable way in which the GWOT is being handled).
That said, this statement lacks any empirical support and is complete and utter B.S.:
"Of course, problems with refugees don't arise in the first generation, but rather the second, after the Democrats work their grievance/identity politics magic, so we'll see in 20 years how good an idea this was."
There is absolutely no evidence to support this, and in fact more than a little evidence to support the complete opposite. First-generation immmigrants to this country have always tended to have a strong sense of homesickness and do just about everything they can to retain the culture they grew up with. Their children, however, wind up just about fully Americanized, retaining only bits and pieces of their parents' culture. By the time the third generation rolls around, there is exactly zero difference from any other American except maybe for a tendency to eat certain foods more frequently.
There are boatloads of statistics to back this up. One decent summary is this Tyler Cowen piece:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/11/AR2006061100922.html
While it's true that violent crime rates increase from the first to third generation, this is largely a result of the fact that violent crime rates in the first generation are phenomenally low:
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/538703/
(This is the study Cowen refers to)
I have no idea if you are a WASP or, like many of us, the descendant of an Ellis Island-era immigrant. But if you are willing to claim that Joe DiMaggio's generation of Italians (who famously fought with their parents over how much they were assimilating) didn't assimilate into American culture, then I am calling shenanigans. Seriously, that generation is the generation that we like to think of as "The Greatest Generation," and includes the grandparents of just about any 20 or 30-something with an Eastern or Southern European last name. Are you really arguing that generation was "problematic in terms of loyalty"?
As for the third generation of immigrants, you are essentially saying that the parents of a huge chunk of 20 and 30 somethings in this country (again, anyone with an Eastern or Southern European last name) were disloyal Americans who had a longing for the old country. Oddly, I can't recall either of my parents ever saying that they wished they were born in Poland. Nor do I ever recall my wife (a third generation Italian) ever expressing sympathy for Mussolini.
Point is: SHENANIGANS!
Not to put too much of a fine point on this, but by your logic:
Phil Rizzuto, Yogi Berra, and Joe DiMaggio (BTW: I actually hate the Yankees) didn't really want to play baseball like the American kids, but were instead forced to do so by their America-worshipping, Old Country-hating parents.
Of course, the complete opposite was true- their parents fought them tooth and nail for wanting to play a sport that was so "American."
What a bunch of McArdles. How embarassing for The Atlantic. Who did this bimbo sleep with to get this job? The only retards left here will be total retardles like Marcus and Occam's Beard and the other hangers on.
McArdles will be quietly replaced within a year.
Mission Accomplished!
I am sure that Marcus knows how to use Google, but it is very difficult to believe that anybody with a knowledge of how the United States manages international arms transactions and CIA black budgets would expect to capture the information related to these arms transactions on an armchair armaments calculator. Howard Teicher worked for the National Security Council when Ronald Reagan was President. Read the full affadavit (dated 01/31/1995) filed by Howard Teicher in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Plaintiff) v. Case No.:93-241-CR-HIGHSMITH CARLOS CARDOEN, FRANCO SAFTA, JORGE BURR, INDUSTRIAS CARDOEN LIMITADA, DECLARATION OF a/k/a INCAR, HOWARD TEICHER SWISSCO MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. EDWARD A. JOHNSON RONALD W. GRIFFIN, and TELEDYNE INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a, TELEDYNE WAH CHANG ALBANY (Defendants). This affadavit will not appear on the armchair armaments calculator.
The United States did not create Saddam Hussein, but the reason that Saddam Hussein was only convicted of murdering 182 people is that the United States did not want a longer, more comprehensive trial to reveal the full extent of the complicity of the United States in sustaining Saddam Hussein during the 1980's. If Saddam Hussein had not invaded Kuwait, it is possible that he might still be considered an ally that we would hide in the closet when Grandma visits.
It is likely that more Americans would be willing to help the Iraqi refugees if the United States was in the process of executing a sustained withdrawal of all of our military forces from Iraq. It would also be interesting to know how much money is being donated to the Iraqi refugees by supporters of the Iraq invasion. Megan McArdle can start by revealing how much money she donated to the Iraqi refugees during each of the past five years
Where are you going with that line of questioning, precisely?
Posted by Jason Van Steenwyk | April 11, 2008 10:35 PM
I was going to send you a Care package via APO.
Do we even have to ask that question?
I am not morally responsible for someone else's act. However, Christian charity creates a moral obligation to help the needy. Christian charity is based on the idea of imitating Christ. "What would Jesus do for these needy people if He Knew about them (ie. Knowing them as only God is able to Know)".
Obviously, if you are not Christian, if you are an antheist, a communist, or a member of some other morality, you have no reason to imitate Christ. You should do what is best for you.
Imitating Christ is what is best for me because it makes me Christian.
sol,
What would the imitation of Christ lead you to do in the U.S.'s present circumstance?
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Arguing about who lit the match while the house around you is burning down doesn't make much sense(unless your ego is so fragile you think the only way to preserve it is to engage in meaningless big-lawyer-on-campus debates). Anyhow, if any you want to actually DO something about the problem, instead of just trying to prove who's right or wrong, here's a place where you can help:
http://www.networkforgood.org/topics/international/iraq/
Who's responsible is irrelevant. We weren't responsible for the tsunami and yet we helped because it's the right thing to do, and because we have the power to do so.
"Arguing about who lit the match while the house around you is burning down doesn't make much sense..."
Except insofar as it helps you to know who can't be trusted with matches in the future, so as to prevent future housefires.
Megan should not be trusted with matches in the future. It is not without sense to make sure that that is duly noted and remembered in the future.
By contrast, we *should* give more weight to the judgement of those who told us, 6 years ago, that playing with those matches would cause this housefire. Again, it's sensible to note that and remember it.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
The people who told us 6 years ago that this was a bad idea could be equally weighted against the larger group of people (6 years ago) who favored or were agnostic to action in Iraq. Having possibly guessed right on the Iraqi coin flip (and truly more historical distance will decide) does not permanent wisdom make.
As to the question of responsibility, it should not be asked as the obvious answer is yes. We financed Iraq, and we invaded (and justifiably in light of broken agreements from the first Gulf War where total destruction was spared). But, if someone does not except your help, or sabotages your help, there is a point where your responsibility is reduced. As to refugees, you might offer assistance to those that are helping you fix the country, but not to those merely fleeing sectarian violence, a rather fixed factor that only the Iraqis can handle.
Let's talk cake a moment. You have never made a cake and decide to make one. Your mother in law is watching. She tells you it won't taste good so you are better off buying from the store. You ignore her. She does not want cake, does not want you to make cake, nor is she about to help you make the cake.
You make it, but forget butter, mix apples and peanuts into the batter, and cook it at 600 degrees, and fail to grease/butter the pan. You make a frosting out of melted candy bars and put it on the cake fresh out of the oven and it drips off.
Your mother in law looks at you and says, "See. I was right. You shouldn't have made the cake. Why didn't you listen to me."
You nod your head quietly. "Next time," you say to yourself, "I will follow a recipe and make sure my mother in law is back in Waco where she belongs."
That, is the Iraq situation. Bad execution, not necessarily impossible or bad idea. Sometimes good ideas get screwed up by the people doing them, kind of like hiring a contractor to fix your roof who fails to fix it.
"That, is the Iraq situation. Bad execution, not necessarily impossible or bad idea."
Nope, it was a bad idea. An optional war of aggression against a nation that has not harmed you and is not a clear and present danger is, let it be said now and forever, a bad idea, and leads inexorably to the atrocities listed by Megan McArdle above ("bombings, kidnappings, and so forth...", noting, as Megan forgets to, that "and so forth" includes the torture of civilian detainees, many of whom are innocent, and almost none of whom received trials to determine their guilt in advance of the torture they were forced to endure).
When your cake is an optional war of aggression, there's no way to bake it correctly. There's no contractor who can fix that roof competently. Choose yer metaphor, it can't be done, and we should never again do it in the future. Nor should we ever again heed the advice of those who urged us to do it last time.
In the name of the hundreds of thousands of human beings who've died unnecessarily in Iraq over the past 5 years, let that be our lesson.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
What does the Iraqi representative govt. think?
"I agree with the people who say that the muggers are morally culpable than the person who gave the directions--rather, the ones who say that the chap who engages in ethnic cleansing or sets off a car bomb in a crowded marketplace is morally worse than the US." -- Megan McArdle
This is illiterate.
There would seem to be one or more words missing.
And even with them properly in place this disaster of a one sentence paragraph would still be an utter abortion. (Way too much roughly jammed together, a nightmare transition, the bizarre and affected use of the word "chap", the consistently horrendous English as a second language prose, etc.)
McArdle doesn't post that much. Does she even read what she writes?
This wouldn't pass muster in a Freshman Comp class at a better community college.
Rushed, sloppy, affected and incoherent.
Just embarassing.
"What does the Iraqi representative govt. think?"
I dunno, but while we're asking, we could also ask the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead or the 3 million displaced Iraqis. I wonder what they think.
In any event, the most recent poll I could find record of puts it at 70% of the Iraqi public that wants us our military to stop occupying their nation.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/opinion/?id=25327
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
interesting?
"ROBERTSON: This week is an important week in the United States. Ambassador [Ryan] Crocker, General [David] Petraeus giving their reports on the state of the surge -- looking ahead on what U.S. troops should do -- U.S. surge drawdown will end in the summer. They are considering a pause, maybe weeks or months to examine when they should pull all American troops out. What do you want the U.S. to do? Should there be a pause in the drawdown? Do you want it to be weeks? Do you want it to be months?
AL-MALIKI: First of all, I told him that the surge has created positive results -- and created successes. Second, through the partnership between the coalition forces and the Iraqi forces, there has been great development in the Iraqi security forces -- and proof of that is what happened in Basra and Karbala and other areas in Iraq. Iraqi security forces have become highly qualified to take over security responsibilities and these facts on development, equipping and readiness and Iraqi capabilities and the fact that increasing the number has achieved what was wanted. And there is no growing need for this increase [the surge]. I believe the American forces can draw down. I don't believe the decision for a drawdown should be paused as long as Iraqi security forces -- based on the first agreement the more Iraqi forces move forward, the more U.S. forces move back until all security responsibilities are handed over and coalition forces remain in a support role. And in a support role, you don't need such a big number." cnn 4/7/08
Exasperated,
It doesn't matter that Megan can't write. She's a young, cute Republican woman who went to the right schools and knows how to network. She fills a niche. That's "the free market" libertarians love to go on about. She's not stupid and she might be capable of consistently writing at the college level, but that's not what's needed for the gig so she often doesn't bother.
"The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers [or the controlled Media in general]... [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper." --Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785.
Posted by MEH | April 12, 2008 12:24 PM
to cross-post from nearby thread..
I don't accept the phrase "optional war of aggression" as an indisputable point.
All wars are optional unless the boot is on your shore. When was the last time the United States fought an entirely necessary war where there was no debate (among the population) on whether we should or not?
As for aggression, Iraq did not live up to legal and military obligations from the first Gulf War during after their surrender, so the United States at any point can in fact inforce those obligations. The Iraqi regime was living on borrowed mercy, and I don't know that the existence of Saddam today would make for a better Iraq ten years from now.
So Patrick Meighan you can make a pronouncement about what is proper now and forever without it actually bringing us any closer to truth.
Probably one of those things we have to disagree on, though I do believe it's people like you who will at least keep us thinking through future situations a bit.
coom...
I certainly agree that it's in Maliki's best interests that the U.S. retain some force in Iraq for as long as Maliki is alive (and as long as he continues to faithfully represent the U.S.'s national interests in the region, and not a moment longer).
But whether what's in Maliki's interest happens to match what's in the Iraqi peoples' interest is very debatable. And whether Maliki's preferences with regard to our military deployment happens to match the Iraqi people's preferences with regard to our military deployment is, to say the very most, debatable, if it is even that... current polls seem to show a hefty majority of Iraqis preferring the U.S.'s withdrawal within the next 12 months, at the outside.
Current polls seem to show a majority of Americans preferring the same.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
I don't accept the phrase "optional war of aggression" as an indisputable point.
Shorter Finn: I don't accept the phrase "heliocentric solar system" as an indisputable point.
Re: Re: we should soon see the resulting disaster in both Iraq and the Middle East.
We are already seeing disaster in Iraq-- what in God's name do you call 150,000+ dead? And please drive by the nearest gas station and note the prices, a major fraction of which are the result of US foreign policy.
Re: It might be worth pointing out that enmity between Hindus and Muslims in India is essentially, oh, about 200 years old.
Nonsense. Religious violence in India dates back to the introduction of Islam into the subcontinent by various Turkic conquerors. Look up the "Ghazis" for an appalling example. Yes, there were long eras of tolerance, but they were punctuated by eras of violence and oppression. The Moghul Empire collapsed largely because it anbandoned it earlier policy of complete tolerance and sought to impose Islam on its territories. The British did not create India's religious divisions or their explosive potential.
MEH -
I wouldn't want one from the likes of you.
tontocal-
Good Lord. I had never heard of Ms McArdle until she decided to take Glenn Greenwald on.
Sorry about your abject cluelessness!
Megan (as "Jane Galt") had a blog long before "Ellison", "Ellers", "Ellersburg" and/or "Wilson" had ever even posted a comment defending Gleen.
GiGi is also apparently the only self-described "non-leftist" that was a participant in the "Townhouse emails (the priority of this group was to co-ordinate "left-wing" 'talking points').
Did Gleen buy stocks from Jerome?
Ed @ 7:30
I am glad you equate your opinions with the solidity of science, though the nature of many wars is optional, and whether this war is aggression can certainly be debated based on previous action and law concerning the region.
Thus half the phrase is irrelevant (since death, refugees, destruction and optionality are largely fixed factors of any war, good or bad), and the other half is debatable. But thanks for the use of high school science in such a succinct manner to make a point that still revolves around the firmanent of your own opinion.
Shorter Finn: The Iraq Invasion was, is, and always will be awesome, no matter what any stupid-head empiricists say.
Posted by Jason Van Steenwyk
"In a breathtaking, orgasmic spasm of frustrated intellectual puppyhood, Professor Jay Rosen has dubbed me "troll" and banished me from the PressThink blog.
Scroll down for the comments leading up to the banishment.
Jay had specifically criticized McCain for suggesting the Iran-Al Qaeda connection. I came to McCain's defense, and attacked the notion that Shia and Sunni never worked together, number one, and number two, Iran and Al Qaeda's relationship has been well documented, by the 9/11 commission for example, and Iran has also provided material support to Sunni extremists already.
On this there is no real doubt. We have the smoking guns.
In banishing me, Rosen pretty much validates my entire thesis concerning him, but also his tribe of leftard journo sychophants:
They are a cloistered set of intellectual inbreds with no clue what they don't know.
Splash, out
Jason
Seeing such, I wouldn't doubt it, though, no doubt, if the same "leftard journo sychophants" channeled HDT, deciding Not to pay 'War Imposts', I'm sure, keyboard warrior, you'd be howling for their blood, too, no?
MEH:
I was going to send you a Care package via APO.
Jason:
MEH -
I wouldn't want one from the likes of you.
Yep, pretty much fulfills all of my worst imagining about anyone who supports this clusterphuque of a war at this late date.
Thank you Jason. Anytime I'm tempted to treat some warmonger as more or less human, I'll think of you and snap right out of it.
I am willing to take any and all care packages. :D
"Keyboard Warrior?"
That's a new one. ;-)
Long post lost (perhaps mercifully!) through a computer glitch, but for now suffice it to say that
1) the Italian immigrants cited above were a century ago, before Dems had invented grievance and identity politics,
2) the ethos of the time was the melting pot, not the multicultural "tossed salad" nonsense promulgated today,
3) the immigrants we were discussing are Muslim, and therefore less likely to fit in, and
4) ALL of the London Tube bombers were second generation Brits from Muslim countries.
Cite all the (probably specious) academic studies you like. I'm sure the families of those killed in the London Tube bombings will derive great comfort from them.
Do you ever proofread your posts? That second paragraph is truly painfull. I suffered through it three times, and I still don't know what it says.
Further to my point above, see this: Smith says monitoring 30 U.K. terrorism plots.
Homegrown, second- and third-generation Brits.
SheetWise:
Next time you gripe at someone over proofreading, you might want to run a spell-check program.
Jus' sayin.
Jason,
I would wager Sheetwise will reread his post, and not know which word you mentioned.
The irony meter has been officially pegged.
Marcus
Shorter Occam's Beard: Facts don't matter. If it feels right, it must be true. Tyler Cowen is a far-left hippie.
Last I checked, we haven't seen many terrorists coming out of Dearborn, Michigan. Also, last I heard, the second generation Japanese-Americans (about whom almost exactly the same things were said) of WWII were not exactly the cause of much domestic disturbance. Of course, FDR locked them up anyways...
Also, there's the little detail that the UK is, how do I put this, NOT THE US. And the fact that one or two cases are hardly examples of broader trends. But mostly, it's the fact that the US is a different country that has a remarkable history as a melting pot that is to say the least a bit different from the history in most of Europe, including the UK.
No, it isn't. The UK is a much smaller country, with a much more efficient national police force. Getting lost in the UK is tough compared to the US. No Eric Rudolphs or Ted Kaczynskis there.
The US did have a remarkable history of being a melting pot, but that's exactly my point. The Democrats are to blame for deprecating that melting pot history, in favor of the "tossed saled" multiculti model. How that plays out with Muslim immigrants is the question before the house.
As for the number of cases, how many homegrown terrorists would be OK with you? Pretending this won't be a problem won't make the problem go away.
occam did you actually read the wiki post you linked to or just bits and pieces because if you did, you would see that the US indirectly gave Iraq lots o goodies through their neighbors. Now maybe if you had access to those numbers. Oh you can't because that information is classified and sitting in the basement of the Ronald Reagan Library.
Occam comes from the school of Ann "the ellipsis is my best friend" Coulter.
Oh and Democrats "deprecated"? please. I'm even surprised that I am writing this to you.
The UK is smaller than the US. However, compared to other countries in the world it is quite large, population-wise. Moreover, it is a far more densely populated country than the US. It also has much different immigration laws, and a significantly different cultural view of immigrants (though not as bad as most of Europe, still not as good as ours has historically been). Finally, it is far more socialist than the US, which means that identity politics, as you call them, have much more meaning to them.
But on top of that, you offer exactly zero evidence to show that things in the US have actually changed with respect to immigrants. All you offer is a blanket assertion that "Democrat identity politics" have changed everything. Of course, you ignore the fact that:
1. "Identity politics" are hardly a new thing in this country - or have you forgotten about Tammany Hall?
2. Most people frankly don't pay that much attention to politics, so Dem "identity politics" are pretty irrelevant to most people.
3. Every single generation of anti-immigrant fear has been driven by the specious claim that "these immigrants are 'different.'" Oddly, not once has that fear proven to be true.
So the burden is on you to show some actual facts to prove that this generation is "different."
Also, last I checked, the real homegrown terrorists we've had to face have been as red-blood American as they come: McVeigh and Rudolph (and for that matter Kaczynski) weren't exactly driven by a loyalty to their long-lost homes. Indeed, with McVeigh and Rudolph, their terrorism was driven by a twisted sense of patriotism.
Mark:
Have you forgotten about Tammany Hall?
Democrats.
Back when Democrats were Republicans...
Speaking of "identity politics," how about those "Christian Evangelicals," "supply-siders," "pro-lifers," etc.
Rob, Tammany Hall was never Republican. Ever. Not even close. In fact, it was Republicans who finally cleaned up Tammany Hall, IIRC.
Mark, you're making my point vis a vis the UK. Homegrown terrorists have a much more difficult time hiding in the UK (where I lived for many years) than they will here, and yet the UK has a second- and third-generation homegrown terrorist problem.
You are aware of the Democratic Presidential primary this year, aren't you? What else is that but an identity politics Super Bowl?
You kind of have a point here, but kind of not, too. Anti-immigrant fear has been driven by claims that "these immigrants are different," but then that claim isn't entirely specious: each group is different. The question is in which respects they are different.
In fact, every way of immigration has caused a lot of problems. Tammany Hall, the Mafia, extremist left-wing politics, Tongs, the Russian Mafia, and drug gangs all arose largely from recent immigrants. Each of those has been/is a problem. These maladies were largely confined in some fashion: geographically, ethnically, socio-politically, whatever.
But having a bunch of potential terrorists running loose would be worse than all of the above put together. Imagine the entire US being more or less on the Belfast plan.
Of course I can't provide any facts in support of this thesis. It hasn't happened yet. It is a prediction, prospective, not retrospective. If I'm wrong, we lose out on some Muslim immigrants who might have become fine citizens. If you're wrong, the entire US might look like Belfast, and every public venue might become like an airport departure lounge.
Risk/benefit analysis militates against taking this risk.
Now you're just being outright disingenuous. It's becoming obvious you are willing to ignore all facts and reason, not to mention self-contradiction, in order to oppose allowing Iraqi refugees into the US.
1. You completely ignored my point that identity politics have been around for centuries and offer no evidence to show that the current identity politics are any different.
2. You created a fine straw man with respect to my argument that most people don't respond to Dem "identity politics." All you say is to look at this year's primary process, which at most shows that Dems practice identity politics, a point which I do not contest, and which I have called irrelevant. You have shown no evidence that those politics have caused violence and disloyalty in various groups.
3. The UK's dense population does not prove your point. It's pretty obviously easier to blend in with a large crowd than it is to blend in where you stick out like a sore thumb. Eric Rudolph was able to hide in the Carolina mountains because he fit in there; an Islamic terrorist? Not so much.
4. Your fear about the US turning into Belfast, combined with your subsequent risk analysis is outright absurd. You assume the chances of your fears coming true at 50/50; if that were the case, then yes restrictions on Muslim immigrants would be justified. The problem is that this is not even remotely a 50/50 proposition. In order for the US to become (or have a small portion of it become) anything resembling Belfast, we would have to have:
a. Tens of Millions of Muslim immigrants in a very short time frame of less than a decade.
b. Of which:
1. a supermajority are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers or
2. a supermajority of descendents become terrorists or terrorist sympathizers.
c. At no time does this trend become apparent to other Americans until it is too late to stop.
d. Islamic immigrants fail to assimilate as every previous wave of immigrants has done.
Point is: there is close to zero risk other than your irrational fear that by your own admission has no basis in fact.
I don't have time to refute all of your points, so let me pick a few.
First, I'm not expressing "fear," but rather concern at an unwarranted risk.
Second, your Belfast response is a straw man. There is no need for "tens of millions of Muslim immigrants." How many Saudis did 9/11 take? How many right-wing nut jobs to blow up the Murrah Building? How many left-wing nut jobs to create the Weather Underground?
Furthermore, there is no need for a supermajority to be terrorist sympathizers. Apathetic, or cowed, will do. Most Muslims in the Middle East fall in that category, and yet that region has a small but noticeable terrorist problem,yes?
Any attempt to stop Muslim immigration will only become more difficult, as people such as yourself attempting to show their liberal bona fides will be joined by the Muslims who are already here.
Before blowing off my point, I recommend you visit Bradford, UK, and a banlieu in Paris. Both countries have "no go" areas where even the police don't dare to venture. Care to guess why?
The concern is not irrational. On the contrary, it's based on observation in those countries, both of which face huge demographic and political problems arising from allowing such extensive Muslim immigration.
One fact you've not grasped is that a significant proportion of Muslims don't want to be assimilated; quite the contrary. They view our society as disgustingly decadent, immoral, corrupt, and idolatrous. To them, assimilation is repellent; they view it they way we would view assimilating into a culture that encouraged, say, pedophilia and incest.
For example, Google "Sayyid Qutb," a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and now called by some "the man whose ideas would shape Al Qaeda." He became a radical when he was scandalized by the degeneracy of ...Greeley, Colorado, of 1950 vintage (!). (Recall that TV of that era depicted married couples sleeping in twin beds, and the word "pregnant" was verboten.)
Qutb was horrified by the "animal-like" mixing of the sexes (even in church!), which to him was primitive and "shocking."
Think he would've assimilated? Qutb and a few dozen like-minded men could raise a lot of hell if they put their minds to it. Every Muslim we allow to immigrate is buying another ticket in the Qutb lottery.