Don't blame the Victims

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/dont-blame-the-victims/2006/11/12/1163266408400.html

A day after the result of the US mid-term elections made it clear that Americans had lost faith in George Bush in general and in his handling of the war in Iraq in particular, Bill O'Reilly, the Fox cable news populist, spruiker for all-out war against what he calls "Islamic fascism", stout defender of - and chief fawner over - Bush and his foreign policy, said he was sick and tired of the Iraqi people.
He was sick of hearing about Shiites and Sunnis and Kurds, sick to death of it. How ungrateful could they get, these people, after America had freed them from Saddam Hussein and had spent all that blood and treasure on liberating them?
This was despicable but not surprising. Populist pseudo-defenders of democracy like O'Reilly never did give a damn about the Iraqis and did not really pretend that they did. It was therefore inevitable, once it became clear that America was not "winning" in Iraq, that the O'Reillys of this world would blame the Iraqi people. And wash their hands of any responsibility for what may now befall them when "our boys come home".
What was equally despicable, if more surprising, was the revelation that in the upcoming January edition of Vanity Fair magazine, some of the leading neo-conservative proponents of the war to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein, seek to deny any responsibility for the consequences.

Sounds fair enough to me.

 

[skeptifem]

Since they didn't quote him directly I wonder what he said exactly. He is a total jerk but he does get misquoted by news sources often (less often than he claims... but still).

 

[shuize]

Personally, I am against the U.S. leaving Iraq, not least out of fear of what will befall those who we've asked to stand with us.

In my view, it's not just the Republicans, but certain Democrats who voted for the war that also need to think back to what happened to our allies on the ground the last time we cut and ran.

 

[Mephisto]

Personally, I am against the U.S. leaving Iraq, not least out of fear of what will befall those who we've asked to stand with us.

It didn't seem to matter to Daddy Bush the first time around.
___________

"Meanwhile, during the first two weeks of March, retreating Iraqi troops sparked a rebellion in the south against Saddam's regime among the mostly Shiite population. The rebels captured Basra and the Shiite shrine cities of Najaf and Karbala. By the end of the month, Saddam's forces had quashed the rebellion and mass executions of the rebels had begun. In the north, Kurdish forces, at the instigation of the Americans, also rose up against Saddam during March. However, when the Iraqi army finished putting down the uprising in the south and turned its attention toward the problems in the north, the Kurdish rebellion likewise fell apart. Hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled to the mountains where at least 20,000 died of exposure and malnutrition."

http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/gulf_war.htm
__________

"Meanwhile Hussein moves to quell rebellions by the Kurds in the north and Shias in the south, who have been encouraged to rebel by the false promise of US support."

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html
__________

"The revolt took place with the encouragement of the president of the United States. The words of the president were followed by leaflets and broadcasts. People believed it. And when they rose up, they expected to get help and assistance from allied forces in the region," says Dr. Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress.

But the rebels found themselves fighting alone."

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/unfinished/war/index2.html

 

[Garrette]

It is my opinion that George H. W. Bush's failure to support (or at least defend) the Kurds and Shiia during their uprising is one of the great humanitarian tragedies and one of the US' biggest strategic mistakes. This is even though I was and remain in general a fan of his.

 

[pipelineaudio]

In my view, it's not just the Republicans, but certain Democrats who voted for the war that also need to think back to what happened to our allies on the ground the last time we cut and ran.

Exactly, would there even be an al-Queda of this persuasion now if we had finished the job in the first place?

The whole outlook on the USA would have been different. The "need" in the islamic world for mooj would have been far less

 

[Garrette]

Exactly, would there even be an al-Queda of this persuasion now if we had finished the job in the first place?

The whole outlook on the USA would have been different. The "need" in the islamic world for mooj would have been far less

al_Qaeda was quite widespread, quite active, and quite anti-US and anti-Western well before the invasion of Iraq.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

IIRC Didn't the House of Saud bankroll the first Gulf War? Also, the US profited from this war because of the Saudi petro-dollars (ie it didn't cost us anything, notwithstanding the minor death count and injuries). I don't think an overthrow of Saddam was part of the Saudi deal .....

Charlie (put me in the conspiracy section if I'm wrong) Monoxide

 

[Darth Rotor]

I don't think an overthrow of Saddam was part of the Saudi deal .....

Charlie (put me in the conspiracy section if I'm wrong) Monoxide

The Saudis certainly paid a lot of bills, and the Japanese tossed in IIRC 5 billion.

The strategic problem of Iran most certainly influenced both Bush Sr and the Saudi King to wish to blunt Saddam's strength, but not to eliminate a counter to Iran in the region.

I will hazard a guess that the current Royal Family in Saudi is most definitely not happy about a broken Iraq, and an increasingly boistrous and confident Iran.

DR

 

[geni]

I will hazard a guess that the current Royal Family in Saudi is most definitely not happy about a broken Iraq, and an increasingly boistrous and confident Iran.

There are suggestions that Saudi Arabia are at least looking at aquireing nuclear weapons. That should make things ah interesting.

 

[geni]

Exactly, would there even be an al-Queda of this persuasion now if we had finished the job in the first place?

The whole outlook on the USA would have been different. The "need" in the islamic world for mooj would have been far less

Al-Queda are sunni. The people it has been suggested we let down were shia.

 

[WildCat]

al_Qaeda was quite widespread, quite active, and quite anti-US and anti-Western well before the invasion of Iraq.

I don't think they existed (in current form and agenda) prior to GW I, it was the US troops based in SA afterwards that spawned al Qaeda.

 

[geni]

I don't think they existed (in current form and agenda) prior to GW I, it was the US troops based in SA afterwards that spawned al Qaeda.

Yes an no. While yes that was the trigger bin larden was always going to fail in his intial objectives which is what made him switch over to international terrorism.

 

[Polaris]

Al-Queda are sunni. The people it has been suggested we let down were shia.

If the US were to cut and run, that would leave a bunch of very angry, very violent Sunni al-Qaida there with plenty of guns and explosives to attack the Shia. But the Shia have al-Sadr, and by extension, Iran. I wouldn't expect Tehran to sit still and watch the Shia next door get brutalized by a sectarian foe.

Whew, not a pretty mental image I'm getting there.

 

[geni]

If the US were to cut and run, that would leave a bunch of very angry, very violent Sunni al-Qaida there with plenty of guns and explosives to attack the Shia. But the Shia have al-Sadr, and by extension, Iran. I wouldn't expect Tehran to sit still and watch the Shia next door get brutalized by a sectarian foe.

Whew, not a pretty mental image I'm getting there.

Al-Qaida in iraq is unlikely to be a significant player in a civil war. There are other bigger and stronger sunni groups who have the advantage of being Iraqi.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Al-Qaida in iraq is unlikely to be a significant player in a civil war. There are other bigger and stronger sunni groups who have the advantage of being Iraqi.

They have been in it since they showed up. They are a significant player, thanks to their highly lethal tactics and headline grabbing methods. The media/propaganda war is part of the battlefield, in which they figure heavily.

The bombing of the Shia mosque in Sammara was part of their clever strategy of spreading hate and discontent. They are a party to the civil war, with their own ends. Not a few Sunni, and many Shia, are as eager to get their hands on these jerks as the US are.

DR

 

[Garrette]

I don't think they existed (in current form and agenda) prior to GW I, it was the US troops based in SA afterwards that spawned al Qaeda.

In current form, you may be correct, but bin Laden was establishing his networks during the fight against the Soviets in the 80s. But I said prior to the invasion of Iraq, not prior to GW1.

 

[Garrette]

They have been in it since they showed up. They are a significant player, thanks to their highly lethal tactics and headline grabbing methods. The media/propaganda war is part of the battlefield, in which they figure heavily.

The bombing of the Shia mosque in Sammara was part of their clever strategy of spreading hate and discontent. They are a party to the civil war, with their own ends. Not a few Sunni, and many Shia, are as eager to get their hands on these jerks as the US are.

DR

Just to emphasize because DR is not only right, this is significant.

I bolded a part that is often overlooked. The US lost the early part of the war, imo, because we did not attend well to this aspect of it. "Al Jazeera kicked our butt."

 

[geni]

They have been in it since they showed up. They are a significant player, thanks to their highly lethal tactics and headline grabbing methods. The media/propaganda war is part of the battlefield, in which they figure heavily.

Only while the US is there. With the US gone media coverage will be somewhat secondardy to forces on the ground.

The bombing of the Shia mosque in Sammara was part of their clever strategy of spreading hate and discontent. They are a party to the civil war, with their own ends. Not a few Sunni, and many Shia, are as eager to get their hands on these jerks as the US are.

Probably more so. Al-Zarqawi was a convient person to personalise things with after it turned out that capturing saddam had little effect on the violence. On the ground? No shortage of groups who would be happy to finnish whatever is left of it.

As players in a post US Iraqi civil war? I think not.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Only while the US is there. With the US gone media coverage will be somewhat secondardy to forces on the ground.

Probably more so. Al-Zarqawi was a convient person to personalise things with after it turned out that capturing saddam had little effect on the violence. On the ground? No shortage of groups who would be happy to finnish whatever is left of it.

As players in a post US Iraqi civil war? I think not.

They are well funded, and fairly well organized. It does not take a multitude to be lethally effective in the game they play (terrorism/guerilla war). I don't understand your assertion that Al Qaeda is solely aimed at the US in Iraq.

If US leaves, do you see, as I do, a Rwanda style Shia attempt to ethnically cleanse central Iraq of Sunni? Such an effort would include targeting and killing a lot of Al Qaeda sorts, certainly. New situation, new bedfellows made by politics.

I'd expect Al Q to garner considerably more support from outside Iraq in that scenario.

With the US gone, and no air force to speak of, the Shia faction faces a porous border to the north and West that they won't be able to close. The civil war, with the US/Coalition gone, sucks in a different cast of players. Iraq won't be left alone, to sort its own affairs out, just because the US leaves. Reinforcing the Sunni become a priority for any number of interested parties, not just Syria and Saudi Arabia, who can turn a blind eye and act as conduits to counter a Shia (likely Iran-supported) power play.

There are several suggestions for the origin of the name of Iraq; - one dates back to the Sumerian city of Uruk (or Erech). Another suggestion is that Iraq comes from the Aramaic language, meaning "the land along the banks of the rivers." Under the Persian Sassanid dynasty, there was a region called "Erak Arabi" referring to part of the south western region of the Persian Empire, which now is part of southern Iraq. Al-Iraq was the name used by the Arabs themselves for the land since the 6th century
I had heard that Al Iraq means "the mud" in the Arabic dialect of the region, but can't seem to find a reference on the net. That name strkes me as an excellent metaphor for what the future looks like there: muddy and bloody.

DR