From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Feb 07 2002 - 21:50:01 MST
[Hermit 6] Seeing as Joe Dees has not chosen to comment on the refutation,
and caviliarly dismisses Mr Halliday, in the same way as he has attempted to
dismiss my arguments, I will, in the following response, instead make use
largely of
[ur=http://papers.maxwell.af.mil/projects/ay1999/awc/99-149.pdf]"GULF WAR
TERMINATION REVISITED", Stanley T. Kresge, Lt Col, USAF, April 1999[/url] a
source provided by Joe Dees to refute his arguments and expose his
resistance to facts even from sources which he has chosen to cite. This will
be designated "GWT 6" to minimize the volume of necessary citations. It is
perhaps important to notice that this is the thesis of a senior American
officer with Desert Storm experience attending the Airforce College, and
that his conclusions substantially match mine (refer page 27 cited below) -
as do those of every other US officer with whom I have discussed this. No
doubt Joe Dees would call them all US-haters as well. In order to further
minimize the bulk of what we still be a long post, I will where possible,
summarize portions of arguments. These will be flagged [HJS 6]. Naturally I
would welcome alternative summations by Joe Dees should he disagree with my
summations. As I perceive Joe Dees as having persistently attacked me rather
than my arguments, I will not <snip> this, but will highlight where I
perceive it has occurred and do my best to avoid responding. I will number
all the points raised in this round as “6” as the highest sequence number
used in previous postings was “5” and I intended to consolidate these
previous posts into a single reply. So the last response from Joe Dees is
[Joe Dees 6] and my rebuttal is [Hermit 6].
[hr]
[Hermit 6] In response to a query for comment on a devastating critique of
US policy in Iraq posted in
[url=http://forum.javien.com/XMLmessage.php?id=id::Jzg_MSV7-jx2G-SClm-IlOx-5udn0vyfeHFe]”Re:
virus: Response to Joe Dees. "Is the US a Rogue Nation?"”, Joe Dees, Thu Feb
07, 2002 01:09 am[/url]
[Joe Dees 6*] It's what I would expect from the former humanitarian aid
coordinator for Iraq; it is in the interests of such people to have such
regimes remain in place so that they can have jobs. One wonders why he is
the *former* UN Iraqi HAC.
[Hermit 6] This is an interesting group of invalid and misleading
assertions.
[list][Hermit 6] First Denis Halliday was not "the former humanitarian aid
coordinator for Iraq", he is "the former UN Humanitarian Coordinator for
Iraq" and as such was responsible for ensuring the effectiveness of UN
humanitarian programs in Iraq. A rather different kettle of fish, from that
which Joe Dees attempted to portray.
[Hermit 6] Secondly Denis Halliday’s job, as he clearly put it, was to
alleviate suffering amongst the population of Iraq within the parameters of
the Resolutions passed by the UN pertaining to Iraq. A job in which the US
earnestly hoped he would succeed. At least, that is what they kept saying in
the UN. It should be noted that his position was at the Assistant
Secretary-General level. Prior to that (mid 1994), Mr Halliday served as
Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management of the United
Nations... better management, performance and development of some 15,000
United Nations staff world-wide.
[url]http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/halliday/bio.html[/url] Not a
nobody.
[Hermit 6] Thirdly, as Denis Halliday himself explained, he is the former
director because he resigned after 34 years at the UN as he could not do his
job under the conditions imposed by the US and in protest of the devastating
effects of the sanctions program.[/list]
[hr]
Wrt [url=
http://forum.javien.com/XMLmessage.php?id=id::Epqn2vR@-bPDZ-ozZC-8P6g-cyxkp1sX_Koo]”Re:
virus: Response to Joe Dees. "Is the US a Rogue Nation?"”, Joe Dees, Wed Feb
06, 2002 10:51 pm[/url]
[hr]
[HJS 6] Joe Dees argues that Iraq should have ignored theft by Kuwait of
it's oil resources amounting to 12% of Iraq production per day. Hermit
responds by asking if the US would have ignored such theft by Mexico,
supported by the USSR in the mid 1960s and suggests that the US would not
have and thus Joe Dees' argument "strains credibility"].
[Joe Dees 6] Only yours. You cannot dismiss or ignore the much greater
incentives that Arabian peninsula conquest posed for such an aggrandizing
individual. Well, I guess you can; you just did.
[Hermit 6] Hermit notes that Joe Dees later argues "Not answering aggression
is seen by Muslim fanatics as a weakness inviting further attack" yet here
argues that Iraq should have ignored aggression and accuses Joe Dees of
logical inconsistency.
[Hermit 6] In addition, Joe Dees does not appear to be aware that Iraq was
being pressed for payment of war-loans made by Kuwait during the Iraq-Iran
war, while at the same time, in breach of previous agreements, Kuwait was
flooding the world market with oil, causing a massive drop in oil-prices and
heavily impacting Iraq's already beleaguered economy caused by that eight
year war which had left 300,000 Iraqi dead. Iraq had excellent reasons to
want to eliminate the "opposition tribe" in Kuwait. As Joe Dees has already
acknowledged that the US erred in telling Iraq that they had no interest in
such a conflict, Hermit accuses Joe Dees of logical inconsistancy when Joe
Dees excuses the US actions as errors, but indictes Iraq's subsequent attack
as demonstrating an intent to conquer its neighbors.
[hr]
[HJS 6] Joe Dees acknowledges Kuwait's dirty hands and US complicity in the
Iran-Iraq war, but argues that Iraq was worse.
[Joe Dees 6] The troops on either side were not our own; we were pleased to
see Iran and Iraq fighting each other, rather than spreading their
Mordor-like regimes over their borders into the subversion and conquest of
other less offensive-minded countries.
[Hermit 6] Hermit asserts that this glee at mutual destruction sponsored by
the US demolishes Joe Dees' arguments that the US is [i]better than[/i]
Iraq/Saddam Hussein. Hermit further notes that Joe Dees has not shown that
Iraq intended to [b]subvert and conquer[/b] her neigbors, or that her
neighbors were [b]less offensive-minded[/b].
[hr]
[HJS 6] Joe Dees argues again that as bad as Kuwait was, that Iraq was
worse, and is requested by Hermit to sustain his assertion that "thousands"
were "killed, kidnapped and vanished by the Iraqis"
[Joe Dees 6] Tens of thousands of Kuwaiti civilians were killed in the Iraqi
takeover, and another 7000 simply disappeared.
[Hermit 6] Hermit notes that Joe Dees appears to be misinformed. The figures
announced by Kuwait to Associated Press in 1999, by Duaij Anzi, manager of
the Kuwaiti committee for war prisoners, in response to Bagdad's demand for
international community pressure on Kuwait to release information on more
than 1,150 Iraqis whom Baghdad claimed have been missing in Kuwait since the
1991 Persian Gulf War, spoke of 400 Kuwaitis killed by the Iraqi occupation
forces and another 600 missing, believed taken hostage in Iraq. That's a
total of 1,000 or so casualties in a population of about a million and a
half (many Kuwaitis were away at the time of the invasion taking extended
summer holidays) over a period of six months. The statement failed to
mention the 100,000 Palestinians displaced by the Kuwait military after the
war because of Palestinian support for Iraq's annexation of Kuwait. Perhaps
tens of thousands disappeared, but if so, it seems that this was Kuwait's
doing and not Bagdad's. Hermit accuses Joe Dees of exageration and bias.
[hr]
[HJS 6] Joe Dees expresses a wish for "true democracy, freedom of
expression, civil and human rights, egalitarianism, religious tolerance, and
mutual non-aggression in all those nations". And Hermit observes that these
desireable ideals are unlikely in "economically and ecologically marginal
tribal territories" and suggests that destroying infrastructure is not the
way to achieve them.
[Joe Dees 6] If a cancer begins to grow in a body, you excise it to allow
the body to grow in a less carniverous fashion. When we didn't exercise
deterrence over the development of the military-industrial complex in the
third reich, we all know what ensued.
[Hermit 6] I would suggest that there is a clear difference between Iraq and
WW II Germany, including the fact that Iraq agreed to withdraw prior to the
war, and was foiled by American anger fuelled by Kuwaiti propaganda, whereas
Germany pursued a course of unlimited aggression.
[Hermit 6] I further suggest that there is no difference between Iraq
"excising" the evil they claim to have seen in Kuwait and US determination
to "excise" the evil they claim to see in Iraq except for the fact that the
US attempts to excise the "evil" they think they see smacks more of butchery
than surgery. Hermit supports his suggestion:
[GWT p27]
[quote]The final issue is a moral one. Robert Tucker and David Hendrickson
raise this concern in The Imperial Temptation. The authors soundly criticize
the U.S. for creating enormous devastation and misery in Iraq and not
following through with post-war reconstruction and aid.
We have fastened upon a formula for going to war—in which American
casualties are minimized and protracted engagements are avoided—that
requires the massive use of American firepower and a speedy withdrawal
from the scenes of destruction…. Its peculiar vice is that it enables us to
go to war with far greater precipitancy than we otherwise might while
simultaneously allowing us to walk away from the ruin we create without
feeling a commensurate sense of responsibility. It creates anarchy and calls
it peace. In the name of order, it wreaks havoc. It allows us to assume an
imperial role without discharging the classic duties of imperial rule.
Clearly, U.S. measures to overthrow Saddam constituted a substantial
intervention in Iraqi internal affairs. The tragic consequences of that
intervention and subsequent ‘hands off’ policy is an embarrassing, if not
shameful chapter in U.S. history. There is a middle ground between
non-intervention and total commitment to post-war involvement in the World
War II model. Tucker and Hendrickson suggest “that had the United States
refrained from destroying Iraq’s infrastructure and had it not called for
the overthrow of Saddam by the people of Iraq, the weight of the obligation
to reconstruct and rehabilitate would have been considerably lessened”. When
the means are limited, so must be the objectives. The result will be a more
predictable war termination with less risk of undesirable unintended
consequences." [/quote]
[hr]
[HJS 6] Hermit draws a time-line of events reflecting that Iraq adopted a
far from unreasonable stance and was countered by British and US demands
that her ability to defend herself be removed. Joe Dees responds by
asserting that the US was supported by the UN. Hermit responds that UN
support shrank during the war and is completely lacking for the sanctions.
[Joe Dees 6] Petainism and Chaimberlainality in the face of aggression is
sadly an all-to-frequent historical occurrence, as is the decision not to
oppose naked aggression because mony might be made with the aggressor. This
happened with the US in the Vietnam war, with the USSR in the Afghanistan
war, with China in the occupation of Tibet, and
with Iraq in the Gulf war.
[Hermit 6] Hermit suggests that Joe Dees’ response is irrelevant to the
question and cites:
[GWT p 8]
[quote] Arab reaction to the killing of fellow Arabs had to be considered.
On 24 January, the New York Times reported that the Egyptian public,
“shocked by the force and breadth of the allied bombing” was becoming more
sympathetic to Iraq. Three days later “the Egyptian government announced
that it favored neither the destruction of Iraq nor the elimination of
Saddam Hussein”. On 3 February, The New York Times reported the concern of a
prominent Arab political scientist, Kamel Abu Jaber: “If the United States
continues with what it’s doing…, there is no question that the region is in
for a long period of terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, and terrific
hatred”. Sensitive to the public opinion in their countries, Arab coalition
partners, primarily Saudi Arabia and Egypt, were pressuring President Bush
“to bring the fighting to an end quickly. The pressure from the Saudis had
been especially intense”. Media reports of civilian casualties didn’t help
matters. The 13 February raid on the “civilian air raid shelter” in Baghdad
produced the New York Times headline, “Carnage in Baghdad Erases Image of an
Antiseptic War”. Two days later the Times reported “that within the U.S.
government the result of all the negative publicity was to increase pressure
to step up the timing of the planned ground assault in an effort to bring
the war to a speedy conclusion”. Arab reaction wasn’t the only issue.
General Schwarzkopf recalls General Powell’s concern prior to the ceasefire:
“He told me that in Washington the controversy over wanton killing had
become uncomfortably intense—even the French and the British had begun
asking how long we intended to continue the war.”
[hr]
[HJS 6] Joe Dees asserted that the US entered the conflict due to Saudi
appeals for assistance. After Hermit had stated that an attack on Saudi
Arabia was unlikely and that the Saudi Arabia had to be “persuaded” to
accept US involvement.
[Joe Dees 6] If an Iraqi push past Kuwait into Saudi Arabia had not been by
all objective analysis extrtemely likely, the saudis would have had more
options. Perhaps we sold the situation a little strongly, but we didn't
really have to; it was dire enough for them already. And not from us; from
the Iraqis.
[Hermit 6] I suggest that my unrefuted quotation “Iraq had already accepted
Resolution 660, but believed that the US would attack them whatever they
did” is sufficient counter to this claim. Iraq believed, and statements by
Thatcher and Bush did not address this belief, that they were going to come
under attack whether they withdrew or not. I would suggest that hindsight
proves that Iraq was correct, which leaves a principle onus on the UK/US for
the Gulf War and its sequel.
[hr]
[HJS 6] Hermit cited numerous studies proving that the illegal US
destruction of civilian infrastructure was deliberate and planned, including
the consequent civilian casualties and that providing water purification and
sewage treatment is desperately required for humanitarian reasons. Joe Dees
responded by asserting that the reason it had not been repaired was Saddam
Hussein’s refusal to permit monitoring of such supplies or equipment because
of his desire for martyrs. Hermit refuted this with assertions derived from
his reading of an article similar to
[url=http://forum.javien.com/XMLmessage.php?id=id::Jzg_MSV7-jx2G-SClm-IlOx-5udn0vyfeHFe]"Re:
virus: Response to Joe Dees. "Is the US a Rogue Nation?", Hermit, Thu
2002-02-07 01:35[/url] as the same facts are cited placing the blame for the
human disaster firmly on the US.
[Joe Dees 6] I hope that he has a debate with the chief UN weapons inspector
who was tossed out; they routinely found evidence of massive hurried moves
when they sprang surprise inspections, leading him to conclude that the
weapons and manufacturing equipment was being moved ahead of time, and that
their inspections were no surprise, due to electronic monitoring by the
iraqis, iraqi moles within their operation, or both.
[Hermit 6] I accuse Joe Dees of an unresponsive reply, and note that this
assertion fails to address the humanitarian disaster and instead raises the
bogeyman of security issues and transgressions by Iraq in an attempt to
misdirect attention from the humanitarian disaster caused by the US. It
fails to mention that there are substantial reasons to doubt the veracity of
the charges, particularly in the light of the US’ repeated blocking of
attempts to investigate the matter by the Security Council. In any case it
is irrelevant as the following citation confirms the charges this time from
Joe Dees’ source:
[GWT p27]
[quote]A Harvard Study Team report estimated “that infant and child
mortality would increase by some 100 percent during the first year following
the ceasefire, or by some 70,000, as a result of gastroenteritis, cholera,
typhoid, and malnutrition, and many thousands more aged and infirm Iraqis
almost certainly succumbed to the same causes.” In fairness, the Gulf War
Air Power Survey argues that these estimates are high because they did not
anticipate the “rapid resumption of electrical power in Iraq”. To some
extent, Iraqi civilian casualties were an unfortunate by-product of failed
U.S. efforts to effect an elusive desired end state.[/quote]
[hr]
[HJS 6] Hermit notes that the supplies required for water purification are
not controlled (or “dual-use”) items.
[Joe Dees 6] Whether or not something is LISTED as dual use often is a poor
indicator of whether or not it actually CAN be used for nefarious secondary
purposes. Chlorine is a prime example. Industrial water purifiers are
another.
[Hermit 6] I draw your attention to the fact that the equipment and
chemicals are not controlled, that Iraq agreed to permit monitoring of their
use, that they are needed for humanitarian reasons, that there absence is
shown to have killed over half a million children under five and over a
million in total, and that it is the US embargo on water purification
supplies and equipment which is causing these deaths. Arguing that the goods
[i]might[/i] be used for other purposes, when their absence [i]is[/i]
causing deaths, is to adopt a slippery slope argument, which is always
invalid. In addition, Article 54, “Protection of Objects Indispensable to
the Civilian Population”, of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Convention
of 1977 makes this denial of necessary items illegal, and those guilty of it
are, by definition, guilty of genocide. So at best the US and Saddam Hussein
(if the charges against him in regard to the Kurds) moral equivalents.
[hr]
[HJS 6] Joe Dees attempts to justify the deliberate targeting of civilian
infrastructure. Hermit observes that this is illegal, that it has caused
over 1 million civilian deaths and that it forms a “pattern of behavior” by
the US as the same strategy has been used in previous conflicts.
[Joe Dees 6] Actually, the strategy of infrastructure destruction was used
before WW II; it was used during WW I and during the Japanese incursion into
China. It was also used by the Nazis and the Fascists in Europe and North
Africa, and by japan in the Phillipines. It's main purpose is to demoralize
the population base of the enemy and thus sap their will to fight and to
support their troops in the field, as well as to curtail the manufacture of
both weapons and non-weapons support items for use by their troops. I think
that such a policy might have worked against Japan (rather than dropping
nuclear weapons), but it would have taken a long time and many more US lives
(and maybe more Japanese lives).
[Hermit 6] I will avoid responding to the assertions about Japan in WW II
(although I disagree there too) as I raised this to show pattern, not to
raise guilt. I will instead observe that the week before the end of the war
the Red Crescent Society of Jordan estimated 113,000 civilian dead, 60% of
them children. Elsewhere I have shown that by February 1991, the UN
estimated that less than 5% of the water purification system survived, and
that most of the sewage processing infrastructure had been destroyed. I have
also shown that this was deliberate targeting by the US military with full
knowledge of the anticipated result, and have confirmed this by reference to
[GWT p27 Supra]. I further assert that this is illegal in terms of:
[list]
The Nuremberg Charter, which classed the "wanton destruction of cities,
towns, or villages" as a Nuremberg War Crime.
Articles 48, 51, 52, 54 and 55 of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva
Convention 1977 which forbids the deliberate targeting of civilians and
infrastructure required to sustain civilian life.
US Law, in as much as the US War Crimes Act of 1996 makes war crimes
punishable in US federal courts, with penalties up to and including death.
[/list]
[Hermit 6] I would further observe that the War Crimes tribunal has accused
Slobodan Milosevic of “willful killing of civilians”, “extensive destruction
of property not justified by military necessity”, “wanton destruction of
cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military
necessity” and “attacks on undefended towns or buildings” which ratifies the
validity of at least some of the charges that could be made. Naturally,
Saddam Hussein should be charged in the same way for his attacks on the
Kurds, as should the Turkish and Iranian governments. But if justice is to
be done (rather than using the courts as an additional weapon), the US
Presidents, and senior staff and military personnel would have to share the
dock for US actions against Iraq.
[hr]
[Hermit 3] Iraq didn't stand a chance. Everybody knew it. Including Iraq.
[Joe Dees 6] In which case only a madman wouldn't pull out of the conquered
territory unilaterally.
[Hermit 6] I would suggest that Joe Dees has failed to refute the above. In
particular, from a general military perspective, his assertion makes no
sense. If an attack is inevitable, it makes perfect sense to attempt to
blunt its thrust in enemy territory rather than upon your own terrain. Also,
when your destruction seems assured, you may choose to fight to the death
rather than surrender.
[Hermit 6] More telling and to the point, despite the above, as I have
previously shown
[url=http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/colin11.html]Behind Colin
Powell's Legend: Dodging Peace[/url], Iraq did offer a unilateral
withdrawal, and had in fact accepted the seven day withdrawal negotiated in
Moscow, when Bush changed this to “24 hours” and ordered the attack to
begin. In addition, I draw your attention to (my emphasis):
[GWT p5-6]
[quote]Brown’s assessment is supported by the experience of a surviving
Iraqi officer: “We were anxious to withdraw, to end the mad adventure, when
Saddam announced withdrawal within 24 hours—though without any formal
agreement with the allies to ensure the safety of the retreating forces. We
understood that he wanted the allies to wipe us out: [I][b]he had already
withdrawn the Republican Guard to safety[/b][/I]…. Brigadier General Scales,
director of the U.S. Army’s Desert Storm Study Project, reports that “by
March 1, Republican Guard armored and mechanized units had reached as far
north as al-Quarnah, almost 100 kilometers north of Basra… [b][I]To have
reached so far north on the 1st , the Guard armor had to have moved into
Basra on the 27th , if not the 26th” [/b][/I]. In other words, by the 28
February ceasefire, there was little organized Iraqi resistance south of
Basra. Units and individual soldiers that continued to escape were no longer
combat effective, and the surviving Republican Guards had escaped before
Basra could have been captured.[/quote]
[hr]
[HJS 6] Joe Dees argued that the US “permitted” the escape of some of the
Republican Guard. validly stressing very valid US concerns about Iran’s
intentions, and asserting that the US “permitted” some of the Iraq troops
and equipment to escape because of this. Hermit then proved that the US had
forced Iraq into the fight when Iraq was prepared to retreat without
fighting.
[Joe Dees 6] If they were unwilling to defend their conquest, they shouldn't
have taken Kuwait in the first place.
[Hermit 6] The logical consequent to this acknowledgement by Joe Dees is
that “if” the Iraqi were unwilling to defend their conquest, then they were
not the belligerents, which he has portrayed them as being. As I have
clearly shown that they did not wish to “defend their conquest” [supra] they
clearly were not the belligerents. Thus my argument is carried that the US
and her allies were indeed the primary belligerents. This contradicts Joe
Dees’ assertions in all directions, and appears to undermine if not
invalidate practically all of his responses, which were coherent and have
not already invalidated. In addition, as the mandate from the UN was to
restore Kuwait, this offer to retreat by Iraq should have ended the UN
mandated action against Iraq, casting the later action into a somewhat
precarious legal limbo.
[Joe Dees 6] The fact that we let four divisions of Iraq's elite Republican
Guards ride out in their remaining tanks was one of the most horrendous
mistakes we made during the conduct of that campaign. This commentator
claims that letting them go did not make a difference with the Shiites and
Kurds, but he documents that we DID let them go.
[Hermit 6] Having read the article which is in fact cited here as GWT it is
clear that this was not a decision, but an effect of the “fog of war” and
that rather than letting “four divisions of Iraq's elite Republican Guards
ride out in their remaining tanks” the US failed to trap them. I’d add that
only 50% of Iraq’s tanks, and just over four divisions. So there was no
question of “let” here.
[GWT p5-6][quote]Mr. Richard M. Swain, author of the history of Third Army
in Desert Storm published by the U.S. Army Command and General Staff
College, agrees with General Franks. He believes that if the ground
offensive had been allowed to continue, “more Iraqis might have been killed,
but it seems unlikely that any major formations would have been cut
off”.[/quote]
[hr]
[HJS 6] Joe Dees had previously claimed that rather than employing the
soldiers that he mistakenly thought had been “let go” by the US, that Saddam
Hussein used those divisions to “slaughter minority citizens” in both the
north and south of his own country until the US prevented this. Hermit
requested additional details and was provided a series of links investigated
below.
[Hermit 6] Before responding to the links, I draw your attention to all the
rebuttal needed:
[GWT p14]
[quote] Anticipating internal unrest, Saddam Hussein hedged his bets by
keeping the bulk of his army out of the Kuwait Theater of Operations (KTO).
At the eve of the ground offensive, only 26 divisions were inside the KTO
while 42 divisions were in reserve. Units in central reserve included a
mechanized division, a Republican Guards motorized
division, and the Iraqi helicopter fleet. These forces were more than
adequate to deal with unsupported uprisings that “appeared to lack the
organization, unity, and power deemed necessary to topple a weakened but
still entrenched dictatorship”. As Defense Intelligence Agency historian
Brian Shellum put it: “Well-led soldiers with rifles in
trucks—and Saddam had plenty of those—would have been enough in the end to
do the job.”
[Hermit 6] Also notes that this again strongly supports the fact that Iraq
had no aggressive intentions towards its other neighbors – at least until
the US stepped in. Reserve troops are not an immediate threat.
[Joe Dees 6] Cites [url] http://www.island.lk/2001/12/24/featur02.html[/url]
[Hermit 6] Wonders if Joe Dees read that article and quotes:
[quote]Mr. Hussein, by contrast, is a secular state builder whose loyalty is
to himself. In his modernization campaign, he has allowed drinking of
alcohol in public and freedom in women’s dress. He has used ruthlessness,
cunning and expansionism to exterminate his enemies in his quest to
physically and intellectually homogenize a diverse population and mold Iraq
into the most powerful nation-state in the Arab world.[/quote]
[Hermit 6] Wonders why Joe Dees disapproves – and quotes some more:
[quote] When Shiites in the south revolted after the 1991 gulf war, Mr.
Hussein sent in his elite Republican Guards, who strafed crowds, doused the
wounded with gasoline and set them on fire and publicly hanged captives as a
lesson to would-be plotters.[/quote]
[Hermit 6] Let’s look at [GWT] for a military perspective.
[GWT p23]
[quote]The U.S. attempted to achieve its desired end state by encouraging a
coup by the Iraqi military or Ba’ath party. Instead, we encouraged Kurds and
Shiites to rebel against Saddam. According to Bob Woodward, during an 3
August 1990 National Security Council meeting, President Bush “ordered the
CIA to begin planing for a covert operation
that would destabilize the regime and, he hoped, remove Saddam from power.
He wanted an all-fronts effort to strangle the Iraqi economy, support
anti-Saddam resistance groups inside or outside Iraq, and look for
alternative leaders…” By mid-August, “Bush signed a top-secret intelligence
‘finding’ authorizing CIA covert actions to
overthrow Saddam”.[/quote]
[Hermit 6] Notes that the US actions were illegal under under International
law and under US law at the time.
[GWT p30]
[quote]Brent Scowcroft, dismayed at charges that President Bush provoked,
then abandoned, the uprisings answers: “It is true that we hoped Saddam
would be toppled. But we never thought that could be done by anyone outside
the military and never tried to incite the general population. It is
stretching the point to imagine that a routine speech in Washington would
have gotten to Iraqi malcontents and have been the motivation for the
subsequent action of the Shiites and Kurds.”14 According to the rebels, it
wasn’t a stretch. One told a New York Times reporter: “Bush said that we
should rebel against Saddam. We rebelled against Saddam, but where is
Bush?”15 “It was not unreasonable to read the president’s previous call for
Saddam Hussein’s overthrow as a pledge of American support and protection,
and his subsequent stance of non-intervention as a betrayal of that pledge.
Shivering on their bleak mountaintops, and dying at a rate of one to two
thousand a day, every Kurd interviewed by the western media thought
so.”[/quote]
[GWT p15]
[quote]The uprisings were doomed to fail without U.S. support. Unfortunately
for the rebels, neither the U.S. nor its coalition partners wanted them to
succeed.[/quote]
[Hermit 6] Notes that this seems to have been another “error” on the part of
the US.
[GWT p22]
[quote] In 1991 Iran played a role in making propaganda and it provided
weapons to some Iraqi rebel groups, particularly to the Badr Brigade… The
Brigade was composed of Iraqi Shi’is recruited from among refugees expelled
to Iran by the Baath in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and it appears that
several thousand of the entered Iraq a few days after the insurrection had
started. In training and arming these refugees, Iran demonstrated the
continuity of its traditional aspirations to gain leverage over Iraq by
influencing Shi’i affairs in the country.[/quote]
[Hermit 6] Notes that here we have fundamentalism and external interference
and insurrection and terrorism all at once.
[GWT p14]
[quote] Following the initial outburst against Saddam and violence directed
at local authority, the rebellions turned to anarchy. “Refugees fleeing
south continued to report ‘chaotic conditions’ in the towns under rebel
control.[/quote]
[Hermit 6] And that this resulted in serious internal disturbance.
[Hermit 6] Quite a story. It seems that the “fault” lies partway between the
US and Iran. And that Saddam Hussein, vicious methods or not, was putting
down an externally assisted, highly illegal, insurrection. If this were
Sharon or Putin, the US would be cheering him on. Why the difference in
approach? Actually, using CIS action in Chechnya as a yardstick, Saddam
Hussein’s response was very mild. But the CIS is our “friend” in the war
against terror. Do I understand what Joe Dees is saying correctly? Just as
the deaths of 2000 or so Afghan civilians was merely collateral in
suppressing the evils of terrorism? USA GOOD! IRAQ BAD! Is that the extent
of the argument?
[Joe Dees 6] [url]http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~irdp/ref/ref02.html[/url]
[Hermit 6] A lengthy bibliography with no links or content. It speaks to
nothing.
[Joe Dees 6]
[url]http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2001/Winter/s&d2-w01.html]
[Hermit 6] A brutal critique of the RMA together with the only paragraph
mentioning the Kurds:
[quote]Let us look more closely at the Gulf War. The failure of the flanking
maneuver to close the ring on the Republican Guards clearly reflected a
failure of operational art and leadership at senior command levels, which
greatly impacted the war’s strategic outcome. Also, at the level of
political-military decision making, a series of errors compounded this
failure. The premature halt of the ground war for ill-considered public
relations reasons, the signaling of the U.S. intent to withdraw from Iraq
without a quid pro quo, the abandonment of the Kurds and Shiites, and more
generally, the obvious absence of any serious planning for the war’s
endgame—all helped turn a stunning feat of arms into something considerably
less than a strategic victory[/quote]
[Hermit 6] Notice how this source conflicts with [GWT], with both
Schartzkopf’s and Powell’s memoirs, and official state utterances and
records. Not the most valuable reference cited and one that does not speak
to the question at all.
[Joe Dees 6] [url]
http://www.metimes.com/2K/issue2000-31/reg/iraqi_kurd_warns.htm[/url]
[Hermit 6] Here we have an article about external sponsorship (illegal) of
internal insurrection (illegal), anarchy and tribal fighting and a vast
amount of really wishful thinking. It also demonstrates that the reaction
against the Kurds was due to externally sponsored insurrection and thus
legitimate in sense if not in scale. Exactly the opposite of what Joe Dees
is attempting to prove. I will quote just a few lines:
[quote]Iraq's restive Kurds rose up against Baghdad during the Gulf War, but
an offensive by government troops forced hundreds of thousands of Kurds to
flee through the mountains. Kurdish peshemergas backed by allied air power
later succeeded in wresting the area from Baghdad's grip. Intermittent
fighting which then broke out between the PUK and the rival Kurdistan
Democratic Party (KDP) of Massoud Barzani culminated in 1996 when the KDP,
backed by Baghdad's forces, overran Talabani's capital, Sulaymaniya.
AUS-brokered cease-fire followed in 1997. Western diplomats said they had
warned the feuding Kurds they would not come to their aid if they persisted
in their internecine war.… He said Shiite rebels in the south of Iraq would
also seize the opportunity of unrest in the Kurdish areas to step up their
struggle against the Iraqi.[/quote]
[Hermit 6] I begin to wonder how many Kurds were killed by other Kurds
rather than by Bagdad.
[Joe Dees 6] [url]http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9609/04/iraq.chronology/[/url]
[Hermit 6] Yet another sorry saga. Nothing supporting Joe Dees position, but
a report which makes it clear that the US communicated poorly and then beat
up the Iraqis who appeared to have stuck to the letter of the agreement. But
it sure helps build a picture of the Kurds.
[quote]But the Kurds, themselves, helped set off the latest conflict. The
3.5 million Kurds are split into two main factions. And this has provided
Iran and Iraq -- themselves long-standing enemies -- with a way to wage a
proxy war against one another. On August 17, both Kurdish factions clashed
along the Iraq-Iran border. Iranian artillery fired in support of the
Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, led by Jalal Talbani. By the following
Thursday, the opposing faction, Massoud Barzani's Kurdistan Democratic
Party, cast its lot with Saddam, its old enemy. "The Kurdistan Democratic
Party then made a strategic blunder by inviting the Iraqis to enter Kurdish
territory to attack PUK forces," said U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry.
"Our intelligence disclosed an Iraqi military buildup under way more than a
week ago. [/quote]
[Hermit 6] The degree of misunderstanding, ineptitude and total violation of
sovereignty is very clear in this article. I hope that Joe Dees’ support of
my argument is unintentional.
[Joe Dees 6]
[url]http://www.comebackalive.com/df/dplaces/iraq/index.htm[/url]
[Hermit 6] I don’t know what is happening here. One of us is confused. This
is a humor site taking pokes at both Saddam Hussein and the USA in gay
abandon. The last line is a hoot – and if true, lines Ms Madeleine Albright
up in the dock with the rest of the US leadership:
[quote] Madeleine Albright declared in March 1997 that economic sanctions
against Iraq would remain as long as Saddam stays in power. The sanctions
have decimated the Iraqi people.[/quote]
[Hermit 6] Other bits are not so funny,
[quote] What did the United States do? Responded with operation Desert Fox.
Who thinks up these names? For four days in December 1998, U.S. and British
planes blasted the hell out of Iraq. Targeting 97 sites throughout Iraq, the
United States unleashed 325 Tomahawk missiles, 90 cruise missiles and quite
a few B-52s. And with what result? Er, nothing actually. The UN is out,
Saddam is in and the media had a field day. Oh, and the Arab world got very
upset. Then for good measure this year, Saddam has violated the no-fly zones
110 times by sending a few rusty MiG-23s into the air and targeted USAF
planes flying over Iraq 190 times using radar lock on. In 11 weeks between
February and March the United States and Britain dropped 274 bombs on 105
targets. The United States says that 25 percent of Iraq's air defense system
in the no-fly zone has been destroyed. In all, a grand total of 1,100 bombs
have been dropped on 359 different targets over Iraq in the first 8 months
of 1999. But Saddam's not flapping.[/quote]
[Hermit 6] Omitted here is the fact that this was again mainly
infrastructure and civilians that were pasted, but I really cannot imagine
why Joe Dees cited it? To increase the length of his citation list? Now
comes one which Joe quotes from:
[Joe Dees 6] [url]http://www.kke.gr/cpg/solid/iraq/iraq_3.html[/url]
[quote]In kurdistan, the north of Iraq, the Kurdish people who are the
second biggest nationality in the multi-national Iraqi state, have been
subjected to a systematic Arab chauvinistic policy coupled with horrific
atrocities against them. As an example, 4500 villages were razed to the
ground in Kurdistan; 190000 Kurdish civilians were rounded up in 1988 and
deported to the south and then killed; many of them were buried alive in
mass graves. Chemical weapons were used several times against Kurdish
villages. In one of the worst acts of genocide, the town of Halabja was
bombed in 1988 with poison gas and 5000 of its inhabitants perished in 3
minutes.[/quote]
[Hermit 6] Reads it and blinks. Why, I spoke about that town. It’s
celebrated. It is one of those that is claimed tp provide indubitable proof
of chemical warfare use – but whose? Please, read carefully. “In one of the
worst acts of genocide, the town of Halabja was bombed in 1988 with poison
gas and 5000 of its inhabitants perished in 3 minutes.”
[Hermit 6] This is not true. None of it is "true" in the sense of accurate
or believable:
[Hermit 6] It is the worst act of genocide that I am sure has solid evidence
behind it. Not “one of the worst.”
[Hermit 6] It was bombed in 1988 – after Iranian armed Kurds revolted and
while the city was occupied by Iranian troops.
[Hermit 6] Yes, in a population of 70,000, 5,000 died – or a 7% death toll.
Or if you prefer, 5,000 out of [b]20[/b] million (Yeah, I know Joe says 30
million, but the UN and the Kurds are claiming 20 million. I can’t explain
it at this time) or a mortality of 0.25 per 100,000. Compare that to the
16.4 per 100,000 Americans who die in traffic accidents each year. This of
course supports my assertions about the inefficiency of chemical weapons.
[Hermit 6] Yes, poison gas certainly seems to have been used, but the only
reliable accounts I have been able to locate (see below) report that many
(perhaps most IMO) of the fatalities apparently died of bomblets from
cluster bombs – just like the JSOW used by the US all over Iraq – not from
poisoning. Those dying of gas died of Cyanide or possibly Tabun. Remember
Jimmy Lee Gray? How about Donald Eugene Harding? Try
[url]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/botched.html[/url] for a reminder. Even
in a small cell with a massive overload of gas, death seldom occurs in 3
minutes. Those exposed to Mustard gas were burnt or blinded. Meanwhile,
this must surely qualify as the longest 3 minutes ever, as eyewitness
reports claim that the Iraqi bombing continued for two days – possibly three
and at least 17 raids.
[Hermit 6] Of course this is all a little hard to fathom out, and it gets
worse:
[quote] back at the time of the Halabja bombing in 1988, the declared view
of the United States was that the city had been poisoned by the Iranians.
Remember, at that time, Iran had been our official enemy and Iraq the
unofficial but definite friend. Sen. Claiborne Pell, D-R.I., convinced by
staff reports to the Foreign Relations Committee that tactics of
extermination were being employed in Iraqi Kurdistan, introduced the
Prevention of Genocide Act in the Senate, but decisive pressure was employed
by the Reagan administration to get the measure killed. Nizar Hamdoon, then
Saddam's ambassador in Washington, was one of the most favored diplomats in
the city, freely reaping licenses and trade deals from every commercial
department and even earning the prized certificate of "moderate" from the
bulletin of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.[/quote] [url]
http://www.salon.com/col/hitc/1998/03/nc_02hitc2.html[/url] As late as 1990
it was still chalked up to the Iranians. Patrick E. Tyler, Iran Faulted,
Too, in Gas Attack on Kurds, in International Herald Tribune, May 4, 1990.
[Hermit 6] Ah those swings and roundabouts and the vicissitudes of fate. I
recommend to your attention [url]
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg00034.html [/url] and cite:
[quote] The source for most of these "exposes" of Halabja was a report
entitled 'Iraqi power and US security in the Middle East' by Stephen
Pelletiere (trained in politics, also claims Iran was behind the 1991
intifada in Southern Iraq), ret. Colonel Douglas V. Johnson (trained in
strategic studies) and Leif Rosenberger (trained in economics). It was
published by the US Army War College - not usually a source that campaigners
take as providing the gospel truth. I mention the authors' academic
background only in order to point out that none of them (to my knowledge)
are trained in chemistry or medical diagnostics. As far as I'm aware, the
IHT piece of 1990 was just referring to this study (though I haven't seen
that article directly). The work only makes brief mention of Halabja, and
then only assertively (no evidence is offered). On page 52 of the book it is
simply written: "In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with
chemical weapons, producing a great many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish
victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed
for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that
Iran too had used chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it
was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds."… the focus
of their study is not on Halabja, human rights in Iraq or international
welfare, but is indicated by the title of the study, "US security in the
Middle East". Straight after making their claim on Halabja, the authors
detail what they mean by "US security in the Middle East": “As a result of
the outcome of the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq is now the most powerful state in the
Persian Gulf, an area in which we have vital interests. To maintain an
uninterrupted flow of oil from the Gulf to the West, we need to develop good
working relations with all of the Gulf states, and particularly with Iraq,
the strongest." (p.53) This is two sentences after their take on Halabja.
Human rights organisations' attempts to penalise Iraq are "without
sufficient thought for the adverse diplomatic effects" (p.53). Again, p.57:
"under pressure from the Iraqis, all the Arab states of the Gulf - with the
possible exception of Oman - would tacitly support a move to withdraw US
privilieges in the Gulf" - and so Iraq needs to be kept on side, lest "US
privileges" be withdrawn. The sole evidential material provided is that the
photos of Kurdish victims showed blue discoloration of extremities, and this
was an indication of use of a cyanide compound, most probably hydrogen
cyanide or its derivatives ("blood gas"); since it was claimed that Iraq did
not make use of hydrogen cyanide, someone else must have done it. Therefore
(the argument goes), it must have been Iran. This is coupled with a claim
that since Halabja was only recently captured by the Iranian-backed
Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, there was probably an Iranian mix-up and the
Iranians ended up bombing their own side. The problems with this argument
are numerous. Most obviously, why on earth would Iran bomb a town so
extensively whose inhabitants were among the core supporters of their ally,
the PUK? The argument of "fog of war" fails to hold, even if the Iranian air
force had thought that Iraqi troops were still present in Halabja.
Even that seems unlikely: the PUK captured Halabja on 15 March 1988. They
were accompanied by members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard who
coordinated PUK actions. The town was fully under PUK/Iranian control 4
hours after they entered the town. The eyewitness testimony collected by
Physicians for Human Rights and by British filmmaker Gwynne Roberts, who was
in Halabja & captured the attack and aftermath on film, confirms this: the
PUK controlled all exits to the town, and were preventing civilians from
leaving as they thought that the Iraqis would not spread their artillery
bombardment of surrounding areas to the centre of the town if it was fully
inhabited (human shields). I find it hard to believe that with Iranian
troops in the town for 36 hours before the chemical weapons attacks, the
field commanders still thought that Iraqi forces
were still in possession of the town.
The actual attack began at nightfall on the 16th, when 8 aircraft dropped
chemical bombs; they were followed throughout the night by 14 aircraft
sorties, with 7 to 8 planes in each group. Intermittent bombardment
continued until the 18th (some reports say the morning of the 19th). If
the Johnson et al argument is to be believed, Iranians were bombing their
own elite units and key supporters for 48 hours, even though news reports
were already circulating about the defeat of Iraqi troops on the 15th.
Regarding the nature of the CWs used - the crucial element in Johnson's
analysis - the most detail survey of the medical effects was done by
Professor Christine Gosden, a medical geneticist from Liverpool Uni, who has
(I think) done the only survey into the long-term effects of the CW attack
(obvious access problems until recently). From looking at the health
problems of those who were victims of the attacks on Halabja, her results
show that mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX were used in the attack.
Prior UN investigations had catalogued Iraqi use of Tabun and mustard gas
from 1983, but ongoing into the later stages of the war (see in particular
the specialist report of the UN Sec-Gen of 26/3/84, and the UN expert
commission report on use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war doc no.
S/18852 of 1988). Iraqi use of sarin and VX has been widely asserted (the
former, by the Physicians for Human Rights in soil sampling from Birjinni:
[url]http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical.html[/url]). So it seems quite
clear that all the chemical agents that Gosden traces the use of at Halabja
had been used previously by Iraq.
By contrast, I have seen no reliable analysis of Iranian use of either Tabun
or Hydrogen Cyanide - Dr Johnson doesn't tell us that he has any such
evidence either: all he says is that there was no previous use of cyanide
from the Iraqi side, and infers from this that it must have been the
Iranians. By contrast, the presence of cyanide which Dr Johnson claims (but
is still disputed; the claim stems primarily from Iranian autopsies on
victims I believe, but are not independently confirmed) is perfectly
explicable in terms of Iraqi use of Tabun. Gosden says: "The Halabja attack
involved multiple chemical agents -- including mustard gas, and the nerve
agents SARIN, TABUN and VX. Some sources report that cyanide was also used.
It may be that an impure form of TABUN, which has a cyanide residue,
released the cyanide compound."
([url]http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1998_hr/s980422-cg.htm[/url]; reposted
in a better format at:
[url]http://www.chem-bio.com/resource/gosden.html[/url])
The only credible report that Johnson himself cites in his defence, a PhD
from Syracuse University in 1993 - rather than supporting Johnson's case -
shows that the decomposition of the chemical agent, Tabun (which Iraq did
use) produces a cyanide compound. Iraq didn't need to use hydrogen cyanide
directly in order to produce blue discoloration around mouths. Its
established repertoire of chemicals did that as well.[/quote]
[Hermit 6] So did Joe Dees make his case? He didn’t even address it. And the
one and only source he has quoted that speaks to the argument is indubitably
beyond belief.
[hr]
[HJS 6] Joe Dees submitted that Saddam Hussein is “worse” than Israel,
without providing evidence, and suggested that the Kurds had done “nothing
back.” Hermit suggested that the 20 million odd Kurds should be offered the
opportunity to move to a series of village states. Joe Dees responded:
[Joe Dees 6] 30 million. And I would approve of them having a homeland in
their traditional area where Iraq, Iran and Turkey meet.
[Hermit 6] Notes that I am finding the problem of 10 million virtual Kurds
difficult to figure out. I don't know what Joe Dees' source is. I have
addressed the problems of forcing nations to provide a “homeland” for the
Kurds, and suggest that only an American who has not learnt about the Balkan
issues and does not know the first thing about tribal society could make
such a daft suggestion. All of the evidence, including that provided above
by Joe Dees points to the fact that this in not a nation, not even a nation
in the making, but an assortment of tribes – just like Afghanistan. To throw
them all in one basket, surrounded by enemies that need the water they will
be camped on, is to guarantee a new “Balkan” or even Israeli situation.
[Hermit 6] The idea that this might somehow work out sounds to me like the
dream of a cockeyed optimist on crack.
[hr]
[HJS 6] Joe Dees apologized for not breaking International law more
thoroughly on behalf of the Kurds and Hermit suggested that this was not a
good place for a homeland.
[Joe Dees 6] Not without international support and diplomacy to ease the
friction with the neighbors who would be required to cede territory for the
formation of their state. It's a hard road, but the alternative of leaving
them twisting in the wind is not a long-term viable option. the Kurds aren't
going to go away simply because others find their existence inconvenient.
[Hermit 6] And Joe Dees had the cheek to suggest that I was gullible!
[hr]
[HJS 6] Hermit observed that US intervention seldom resulted in the expected
results and that the US appears to be working for the CIS these days. Joe
Dees disagreed, and damned the Chechnyans. Hermit responded with a damning
report on the FSB and the fact that they were undoubtedly behind the Moscow
bombings as part of a strategy to place Putin in the Presidency. Joe Dees
replied:
[Joe Dees 6] Considering the credibility problems of the
Russian-mob-connected Berezovsky, I would view any damning reports from his
underlings concerning his arch-enemy putin with a mine of salt. There were
several bombings some of which MIGHT have Putinprints on them, but the mass
kidnappings did not; some of the definitely Chechnyan perpetrators were
killed.
[Hermit 6] Notes that Joe Dees is again confused. Litvinenko (the author of
work cited above, and already infamous for exposing FSB involvement in
informal “political executions”) worked for Putin, not Berezovsky. And while
the “mass kidnappings” may have had Chechnyan involvement (very likely as
kidnapping is a “traditional” Chechnyan occupation), they occurred after the
CIS had reopened the war on Chechnya and was engaged in genocide and the
“obliteration” of their cities – to the warm support of the United States.
[hr]
[HJS 6] Hermit commented on the huge lack of visible success in taking the
war to the Taliban and Al Q’aeda and the harm done to citizens.
[Joe Dees 6] We have captured a thousand Al Quaeda and Taliban members, and
our bombing campaigns against their massed troops and fortified front lines
surely took out many thousands more. Over a thousand were killed in the
battle for Mazar-I-Sharif alone.
[Hermit 6] Joe Dees, it seems, like many others, cannot believe how little
damage devastating bombing does to well dispersed, dug in troops. Having
engaged in these operations, and noted their lack of success I suggest Joe
Dees perform more research into effective kill zones. It took the Soviets
train carriages worth of ammunition to kill single Mujahedin fighters. I
seen no reason to imagine that capitalist bombs have a greater PoK than
soviet bombs. The very small death and capture toll reflecting under 10% of
the total expected seems proof positive that the Taliban and Al Q’aeda have
faded into the hills – exactly as I predicted, and the fact that the US is
blaming everyone else for their disappearance suggests that they cannot find
them. Also as predicted. A moments inattention, and I predict that like a
ghostly, but deadly band of raggle-taggle-gypsies, they will reappear. Given
the exceptionally small haul of arms found to date, I would also suggest
that they are well supplied with weapons.
[hr]
[HJS 6] Hermit commented on the old-new communist government put into place
in Afghanistan by the same General who occupied the Kosova airport ahead of
NATO just a few years ago, and mentioned the “old” communist Afghan leader,
Rashid Dostum.
[Joe Dees 6] Now there's a brite I'd just as soon see kept as far away from
the halls of power and influence as possible. They threw him the smallest
bone they thought he'd settle for, with his appointment as *deputy* defence
minister.
[Hermit 6] Who we have given the job of running the army on a day to day
basis. Confirmation of who is really managing the circus, I would have
thought.
[hr]
[HJS 6] Whom Hermit mentioned had not lost his delicate touch with prisoners
– only aided by US forces instead of Soviets….
[Joe Dees 6] Those prisoners smuggled weapons into the compound and staged a
bloody revolt.
[Hermit 6] Just after the US had announced that they wanted no prisoners.
Convenient. The only problem with this plan was that it hit the headlines
too early. It is happening all over Afghanistan.
[hr]
[HJS 6] And mentioned that this "old communist" had threatened his way back
into power supporting the “young communists” who pushed one of the few
“Islamic moderates” out of the way…
[Joe Dees 6] Rabbani's former rule was so lawless and corrupt that it
provided the opening for the rise and success of the Taliban in the first
place. The Afghan people, by and large, have no fond memories of him and no
reason to respect him.
[Hermit 6] Unfortunately without even token “Islamic” presence I suspect
that every village has an imam quietly teaching sedition against the new
godless government. And when the euphoria is over, and the reality of a
brutal life in a brutal environment begins to bite again, or a Taliban comes
a visiting, the people will go back to their god, Imam and will follow
whoever threatens them more nearly.
[hr]
[HJS 6] Hermit notes that the Pushtun others have spoken of as a “sell-out”,
Hamid Karzai, does not represent the Pushtun in any way shape or form, is
now prime minister – and wonders how long that holiday will last.
[Joe Dees 6] Actually, I tend to think that he is one of the few that does
indeed place the interests of his country over his own. He risked his ass
in Taliban-controlled areas attempting to consolidate resistance just like
Abdul Haq did; Haq just lost his, which shows how dangerous such a mission
was, and how many cojones he must've had to carry it out. He has asked for a
multinational police force to come in, disarm the warlords, and extend the
rule of law outside Kabul, but so far, the US has refused his request. I
hope that this is not the first sign that we are repeating our former
walking-away mistakes there.
[Hermit 6] Notes Joe Dees’ optimism, but suggests that Hamid Karzai knows
that cops who are not attached to one tribe or another are his one chance of
long-term survival. The odds are that he is hated by everyone and will be
blamed for anything and everything that goes wrong. Hermit further notices
that it is not just him. The entire “transitional” government is asking the
same.
[quote] “The top U.N. envoy to Afghanistan told the Security Council on
Wednesday that the country's new government, ordinary Afghans and even
warlords are demanding an expansion of the multinational force now in the
capital - and he urged the council to say yes. Lakhdar Brahimi said recent
clashes in eastern and northern Afghanistan and flare-ups elsewhere have
instilled fear in the population ``that peace will not last.'' They
demonstrate how fragile security is two months after U.S.-backed forces
routed the former Taliban rulers.[/quote]
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-1501850,00.html[/url
[hr]
[HJS 6] Hermit notes that 40% of the country are now unrepresented.
[Joe Dees 6] One of the reasons for that is the fear that Pashtuns would be
sympathetic to and shielding of the Taliban, who were, like their leader
Omar, predominately Pashtun, and got their start in Pashtun Kandahar.
[Hermit 6] Wonders why he is not amazed to hear somebody as ardently in
favor of democracy as Joe Dees sometimes sounds, justifying why it won’t
work. Its at times like these I really admire the US constitutionalists –
and come closest to despairing over its future.
[hr]
[HJS 6] Hermit notes the very strange demography of the “transitional”
government, and notes that Afghans are beginning to notice the same.
[Joe Dees 6] Well, the Northern Alliance won; but do not forget that this is
an interim government, and a loya jirga is already in the works. Hamid
Karzai has made it clear that if selected by them he would continue as
president until democratic elections could be held, but if they chose
someone else, he would gracefully accept their authority and leave his
appointed post. I think that they're damned lucky to have him.
[Hermit 6] Thinks this paragraph speaks for itself.
[hr]
[Hermit 2] In short, we now have a communist-dominated regime, ruled by a
king
[Joe Dees 6] Karzai is no king.
[Hermit 2] whose strings are pulled by Moscow
[Hermit 6] Looks meaningfully in the direction of Zahir Shah and wonders if
Joe knows how a loya jirga is run… and if he is keeping up with the news.
Hermit suggests that Joe Dees ask President Bush II why the composition of
the US Supreme Court is critical to ensure the right answer to an election
and that Joe Dees familiarize himself with the name Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The
Afghan Islamic Press quoted him as saying the loya jirga won't be a solution
to any of Afghanistan's problems, and complaining that the representatives
were imposed by outsiders. The US is trying to get him expelled from Iran.
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-1501850,00.html[/url
Hermit admires the interesting way in which “democracy” ends up meaning
whatever one wants it to and the way that even quite intelligent people seem
capable of persuading themselves that their opponent won’t recognize or
won’t object to a stacked deck. I guess, some think that if it works in
America it will work anywhere. The trouble with this theory is that in
Afghanistan (like most of Africa) there is no television to tell people what
to think. Instead, people, who do have brains, who always have agendas, and
who don’t necessarily share your objectives, probably don’t share your
objectives even, carry the news from place to place. And there is no way to
determine who they are,
[Joe Dees 6] Russia is acting responsibly in the situation; the US has no
complaints with their participation. They seem to be genuinely endeavoring
to help rather than to extend puppet state status to Afghanistan. This
ain't your old communist USSR, don't forget.
[Hermit 6] Of course the CIS is helping. The CIS temporarily “owns”
Afghanistan -to the extent that it can be safely owned anyway.
[Hermit 6] It is not the “old communist USSR,” they have learnt a lot. Mr.
Putin has even learnt that if you call it the “repression of terrorism”,
that you can engage in genocide and America will help, and that with any
luck, if they don’t mind sharing the strings, that America might even pay to
keep Afghanistan under their control. Perhaps it is the US that has changed
more than Moscow. We now openly support brutal repression and the flaunting
of International law, rather than looking for stooges to engage in it on our
behalf.
[HJS] Hermit observes that that it “will take quite a while for the full
fruits of this exercise to become visible.”
[Joe Dees 6] I think that the outcome will surprise you as much as the quick
deposition of the Taliban did.
[Hermit 6] Do you think I am surprised? It is worth remembering that (as I
pointed out long before we started bombing Afghanistan) that it took the
Soviets less than a week to capture Kabul last time around, and ten years of
bleeding to decide that it wasn’t worth owning the rest of it due to the
huge cost and negative world reaction. They are presumably hoping that this
time it will stay bought as rather than complaining, the rest of the world
will cheer them on as they kill enough freedom-fighters, oh sorry,
“terrorists” to keep it under control. But somewhere in Afghanistan are
40,000 plus Taliban and some 5,000 plus Al’Quaeda. And anywhere outside a
few major concentration points is a no-go zone – for us or our new
government. And anyone with military sense knows it. Especially the new
government, which is why they are asking for troops. What most Afghans
haven’t realized yet, but Mr. Putin and the “new-old” government does, and
is angling for, is that the troops they are asking for are not going to
arrive from NATO, instead, eventually, the world is going to pay to position
conscripts from the border states of the CIS there. No wonder the bear is
smiling.
[Hermit 3] Right now, it is visibly a severe political defeat for American
ambitions to use Afghanistan as a gateway to Central Asian oil and gas, and
while the "evil" Taliban is gone, the Communists are in power in Kabul
[Joe Dees 6] I think that Afghanistan would welcome such industry and the
jobs and money it would provide. as for the 'communists', I guess you
forgot that they're a democracy now, and performing a facilitative, not a
commanding, role. If it looks like it's gonna change, the US would be the
first to honk the horn, and it hasn't happened yet.
[Hermit 6] It would be well to study some geography – and some history too,
while you are about it. The Soviet Union always was a democracy. And the US
was and is not a democracy, but a Republic.
[Hermit 3] the south of Afghanistan is in chaos
[Joe Dees 6] It's being progressively sorted out; impatient, are we? Is it
part of the MTV generation thingie?
[Hermit 6] No. I am not impatient. And while impatience might well be an
“MTV thingie” the premature assumption of having achieved ones goals is more
likely to be one. I am the one saying “wait”, before you make a noise,
evaluate whether your goals have been met and determine whether what you see
matches what you are being told. You have been told that Afghanistan is
under control. But the Pushtun South is still in chaos, the Taliban are not
“defeated” only waiting, there is still “evil” in the world, along with tens
of thousands of terrorists and a certain Mr. Bin Laden.
[Hermit 3] Pakistan is isolated and unloved by all
[Joe Dees 6] Musharraf is beginning to realize that he can't condemn some
terrorists and fund others. I believe that his beginning of a turnaround
will continue and that it'll be the best thing that has happened to his
country in a long time.
[Hermit 6] If he lasts that long. India is impatient.
[Hermit 3] Washington has spent $10 billion to date (and a lot more to come
if we keep our word)
[Joe Dees 6] And I hope we do; the WTC atrocity cost easily a dozen times
that.
[Hermit 6] Hope is such a forlorn thing in comparison to history. When it
comes to making predictions, I prefer history. And history shows that the US
prefers others to pay for her “mistakes” – and she has her own economic
troubles these days, or hadn’t you noticed?
[Hermit 3] and Mssrs Vladimir Putin and Ariel Sharon are happily killing
their own "terrorists".
[Joe Dees 6] The term does not deserve qualifying quotes when applied to the
suicide bombers and machine-gunners of massed civilians.
[Hermit 6] Ask the missing population of Chechnya – if you can find them.
After all, their cities have been demolished. Or ask the missing population
of the Palestine – remember there are 6 million Palestinians sitting around
as “Displaced Persons” in other Arab countries. And Mr. Arafat has just told
them that they won’t be going home. In contrast to International law, the
Israelis won’t let them. And the US is going along with that. In any case,
every Israeli, man and woman, from 18 to 55, is a soldier. Does a soldier
count as a civilian when wearing civilian clothes? Meanwhile the
Palestinians left in the Palestine are not soldiers. They are disarmed
civilians, herded into 20% to 30% of a country that once was theirs,
embargoed and blockaded, regularly attacked by ground attack fighters,
helicopters and tanks, helpfully paid for or provided to Israel by the US
government. In both cases, the quotations are deserved.
[Hermit 3] How much of this helps to fight "evil", prevent further attacks
on the US, avenge 911, or indeed to achieve any other stated US aim is yet
to be explained.
[Joe Dees 6] A lot; the milatary chief, Atef, among at least five of the top
24, is dead, the Base's base has been lost, and its surviving hierarchy are
too busy running and hiding to plan catastrophic attacks in the US.
[Hermit 6] They have lost a few people. Yes. But what makes you think that
terrorists have an hierarchical command structure and are dependent on a
base? Even CNN has mentioned that this is not the case, so by now even most
Americans should have grasped the fact.
[hr]
[HJS] Joe Dees argued that preventing possible but unlikely conversion of
desperately needed water purification and sewage processing equipment into
chemical weapons that might (no matter how unlikely) be used against the US,
was and is more important than the thousands of children dying a day because
the US destroyed the infrastructure needed to sustain civilian health in
Iraq not once, but twice over. I am not going to summarize the following as
nobody will believe it.
[Hermit 2] A slippery slope argument from you? The fact that this decision
[Hermit 6: Not to allow access to water purification equipment] results
directly in the death of hundreds of thousands of children does not bother
you at all? You agree with the immortal words of Madeleine Albright when she
told CBS in 1996 that containing Iraq was worth the death of 500,000 Iraqi
children? [url]http://home.att.net/~drew.hamre/docAlb.htm[/url]
[Joe Dees 3] It might sound heartless and cruel, but we are facing a
heartless and cruel adversary; better theirs than mine, and they are
actively seeking to reify the second alternative.
[Hermit 3] If they are reciprocating, it is difficult to blame them.
[Joe Dees 6] The WTC attack came BEFORE we went after the perpetrators; if
anything, WE are reciprocating, so i guess you can hardly blame us, ayy?
[Hermit 6] 500,000 plus dead Iraqi children, a million plus dead Iraqi
adults. This was between 1990 and 2001, but is continuing. 3,000 plus dead
Americans on 2001-09-11. I think Joe Dees has before and after mixed up – as
well as scale – as well as having provided the most compelling reason I have
heard to date why sympathy is wasted on Utic Americans.
[hr]
[HJS] Hermit argues for the rule of law, and the same law for everyone,
including the US, in a public court so that justice can be seen to be done.
[Joe Dees 6] Or giving homicidal nobodies a chance to make a public name for
themselves whilst they preach their cause in the media, like we did with Bin
Laden himself. The difference is that he had money; a lot of fanatics would
give their lives to take out a bunch of infidels, and the chance, if they
survive, to denounce the hated and despised unbelievers on a soapbox for all
their fundie droogies to hear, applaud and aspire to is just gravy to them.
[hr]
[Hermit 6] I watch the arguments put forward by Joe Dees, who above argued
why democracy won’t work, then argued that deliberately killing children is
acceptable, and now argues that the institution of law is counterproductive,
and wonder why I am wasting my time… I very much doubt that anybody else
agrees with this kind of argument anyway.
[Hermit 6] Which is why I will end this rebuttal here, despite the fact that
with a single exception, I have already done the work to rebut, no
devastate, Joe Dees' self-contradictory arguments. But in fact they don't
need rebuttal. It should be quite clear to anyone that if we hold ourselves
unaccountable to anyone, consider that no harm we do to others is
unjustifiable if we think that some threat might exist, and if we use
different rules for ourselves than we demand of others, then we are not
being just, we will create united opposition to ourselves and when our
society self-destructs, history will not be kind to us.
[Hermit 6] Fortunately, the above perspective is far from typical, even in
the United States.
[Hermit 6] The single issue which remains open is that of Nuclear
proliferation. I have not yet finished my research on that. And seeing that
I am currently working through the "Doomsday Clock" site, I think I will
finish this letter with a quote from one of its editors, Eugene Rabinowitz.
[quote]But American leadership--particularly the administration of Lyndon B.
Johnson--had not been up to the task. The great U.S. failure of the 1960s,
said Rabinowitch, was not so much a "sin of commission"--the Vietnam War--as
a "sin of omission," a failure to use American power and wealth in
imaginative ways to lead a worldwide mobilization of technical, economic,
and intellectual resources for the building of a viable world community.
"The day of reckoning may be approaching, not in the form of American
withdrawal and communist takeover in the Far East, but in a wave of world
hunger, and the accompanying surge of world
anarchy."[/quote][url]http://www.thebulletin.org/clock.html[/url]
[Hermit 6] I argue that this is still true today, and that the arguments
made by Joe Dees are symptomatic of the mindset that created that earlier
failure, a failure of the imagination and a wilful rejection of the lessons
of history.
Regards
Hermit
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:42 MDT