91热爆

Compare the coalition occupation of Iraq with the British conquest of Mesopotamia (as Iraq was then called) in 1917, when the British Empire conquered the country from the Turks during the First World War. Britain deployed an army of roughly 100,000 troops, many from British India, so slightly fewer than the coalition now. British casualties were much higher then than coalition casualties now, but Iraqi dead were far fewer. The Turks destroyed everything they could not carry away as they retreated. There was the threat of starvation, and a complete collapse of local adminstration as occurred in 2003. The big difference was in the way Britain created a new adminstration from scratch, with very few resources and a world war still going on. The number of British people involved in building a new Anglo-Arab adminstration was very few but had a much greater understanding of Arab and Kurdish customs and culture than the Americans seemed to have had this time round. One of the leading figures was Gertrude Bell, who spoke fluent Arabic (in many dialects) and had met almost all the important Arabs before the First World War when she performed the remarkable feat for an Edwardian woman of travelling alone through the desert on great expeditions. She got to know and respect the people, their language, history and customs. The result was that when she came to establish a new adminstration and a new country, they trusted her and supported it. Sadly, the USA did not have a Gertrude Bell.

Please stop pretending that you do not know what went wrong in Iraq!

For how long would you treat your viewers as stupids? Do you not understand that we are not living in the days when the people of Britain will believe anything you say about British involvement abroad? In the days of revolutionary information technology and cheaper travelling, it is now impossible to preach that you have been chosen by God to establish law and order all over the globe and teach people democracy!! People don't believe in your cock and bull stories any more that you are somehow under an obligation to civilise the rest of the world. The people now can see and understand that why you went to Iraq is because you are an imperialist power and have been so for at least the last 800 years.

What went wrong was not lack of judgment or resources; you are just refusing to accept that you cannot defeat peoples' resistance when their country is occupied by you. You are not stupid either to understand that. But you cannot live without being imperialist, it has become the only way by which you can justify your mode of existence.

Two Questions for Mark Urban ref Iraq:

Q.1 reasonable or not - one possible explanation which explained why the US did not have a suitable post Iraq invasion plan in place, was they believed someone in Saddams regime would take over the state (he would be deposed) managing Iraq with existing state agencies & infrastructure?

Q.2 what ever happened to Saddams doubles?

vikingar

Ref Tushar Sarkar #4

"鈥�.you are just refusing to accept that you cannot defeat peoples' resistance when their country is occupied by you鈥�. "

DEFEAT?

Well Iraq is a reality leveller for US forces, as to what they can (forces & resources) & cannot do (aspirational policy)

But it's not a conventional war, period.

The allies have not been defeated on a war comparison, rather they are behind on a 'aggressive policing' comparison.

If it was down to an open traditional fight or the ability to raze building, kill anyone in huge numbers & trash the entire country in less than a month, the yanks could easily do it.

They choose not to, because of what they are attempting to do, support a democratically elected government, within the boundaries of UN mandate, through aggressive policing action.

THE GUILTY:

Why is it, that Iraqis, arabs, persians, muslims (national, regional, international believers) would rather continue the 1,500 year Sunni v Sunni conflict, then concentrate all efforts at ousting the 'Christian invader'?

The Islamic extremists & terrorists & Iraqi insurgents are doing their utmost to kill each other & other Muslims, rather than exclusively squaring up to the allies.

The allied coalition are fighting with one hand tied behind the back & according to rules of engagement, the islamists are no way similary constrained (but still cannot win outright).

RECENT MEDIA SURVEY:

Good set of stats & poll making pics & mini documentary about Iraq poll [1]

Interesting set of results, including this one

- "Slightly more than half 鈥� 51% 鈥� now say that violence against U.S. forces is acceptable 鈥� up from 17% who felt that way in early 2004. More than nine in 10 Sunni Arabs in Iraq now feel this way.

- "About four in five Iraqis oppose the presence of U.S. troops but only a third want those U.S. troops to leave Iraq immediately.

So 66% don't want the US to leave, but meantime 51% think its OK to open fire :(

BODY COUNT:

IBC upper figures of 60,000 [2] v The Lancets [3] discredited upper figures of 600,000+

And who is carrying out 90%+ of the murders ... read IBC.

It's Iraqis, arabs, persians, muslims (national, regional, international believers) purposely killing other Iraqis (mainly muslims).

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1]
[2]
[3]

"3200 US Service Personel have been killed" (in four years.) "The cost in human life has been huge." Not to the US Mr. Urban, not to the US. Last month, over 3500 Americans were killed in car accidents alone. Same for the month before that and the month before that and the month before that. In the last 4 years, over 160,000 people were killed in car crashes in the US and nearly 12 million were injured. In many wars throughout history, more than 3200 died in a single battle. In the battle of Gettysburg, 3155 Union soldiers died and 4708 Confederate soldiers died. Over 27,000 were wounded. The battle lasted from July 1 to July 3, 1863.

What makes you think something went wrong with the war in Iraq?

By the way, Lancet's claim that as of summer 2006 there were 600,000 dead Iraqis as the result of the occupation subsequent to the invasion is absurd on the face of it. That would have meant an average of 600 dead per day (3 years is about 1000 days) every single day for the entire period. Where did all those bodies disappear to? Even during the worst of the insurgency during that period, fewer than 200 ever died in a single day, usually fewer than 100. And Lancet doesn't even mention let alone bother to count the 150 a day Saddam Hussein's regime killed on average every day for around 20 years which stopped with the invasion offsetting those who were killed. Pure media rubbish, all of it.

1. what have we gained after burning Billions of Pound on Irap Battlefield and hundreds soldier .

2. With this sump of money, we spend on research of new energy resoure . Do you think what we will achieve ?

What went wrong, what was supposed to go right? When did the US get anything right? The post second world war track record of the US is abysmal, what was supposed to happen? invade a country with an incredibly diverse ethnic mix, occupy,and of course don't expect an influx of radical young men who now need only travel a short distance to kill Americans. This tragic set of circumstances couldnt have been managed in a more cack handed fashion. I am ashamed to be governed by this present shower and Blair should be haunted to his grave by the suffering he is partly repsonsible for.

What went wrong, what was supposed to go right? When did the US get anything right? The post second world war track record of the US is abysmal, what was supposed to happen? invade a country with an incredibly diverse ethnic mix, occupy,and of course don't expect an influx of radical young men who now need only travel a short distance to kill Americans. This tragic set of circumstances couldnt have been managed in a more cack handed fashion. I am ashamed to be governed by this present shower and Blair should be haunted to his grave by the suffering he is party repsonsible for.

This is a comment not a question.
In the Newsnight email subject heading
US in Iraq. What went wrong?
I think the question aswers its self

Mark

Engrossing stuff last night - thankyou

Although the argument bewtween the some in the US military and "Rummy" has been known about for sme time, I have never been clear on how much of a one man band Rummy really was was and whether the military were really always unhappy with the concepts of minimal force application that Rumsfeld was 'imposing'. Is there an element of scapegoating going on, and if the miliary's reservations were really so widespread, how did they let themselves get so easily walked over?

So in conclusion:

i) Poor US / UK political leadership?
ii) Poor military intelligence?
iii) Poor communication between leadership and intelligence?
iv) Inadequately trained armed forces?

What are the lessons from this mess?

So in conclusion:

i) Poor US / UK political leadership?
ii) Poor military intelligence?
iii) Poor communication between leadership and intelligence?
iv) Inadequately trained armed forces?

Youre report provides great insights into and analysis of what happened but what, in your opinion are the lessons from this mess?

I'm not finished it yet, but the book "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" (by Rajiv Chandrasekaran) provides many of the answers to your question of what went wrong.

It's a shocking indictiment of an administration blighted by egos, dis-information, inter-agency fighting and a near-total inability to accept any constructive criticism or advice from those who could offer it.

With leadership like this, it is only natural that the "mission" was doomed from the very beginning.

The outrageously high death rates amongst the Iraqi people are being presented to my muslim colleagues and friends here in England - or are being percieved as - being committed as genocidal acts by coalition forces. This is being told to them by snippets from various media sources. The statement you make in this blog is a prime example of this selective media manipulation.
"134 British troops and more than 3,200 US service personnel have been killed. It is harder to quantify the number of Iraqi deaths, estimates range from 60,000 to more than 600,000. One thing is certain, the cost in human life of the conflict has been huge. And the killing goes on" What does that mean? To me, it suggests the coalition forces (well, not the actual coalition, but UK & US forces)as being engaged in a titanic struggle, albeit one-sided, for domination in Iraq. This is patently untrue. But you are getting people like 'Tushar Sarkar' taking this nonsense and spouting it back as signs that Queen Victoria is stalking the democratic face of Britain again! Utter farce.
What is going unreported - or barely reported is the fact that there is now nearly 2 million mainly minority Iraqi refugees trying to escape from their almost certain extinction in Iraq - Shia, Marionite, Assyrian, Christian, Turkmen, Shabak, ethnic Arab - ad nauseum. These minority peoples are being seen as a reasonable target to Shi'ite fundamentalists, they can (and presumably the view is they should) be killed with impugnity to create a pure Shi'ite nation.
Purely for academic purposes I will tell you this. The manner in which the British Mandate controlled Iraq - then Mesopotamia - (Mandate as in they were given a mandate to establish control and create a national infrastructure by the Council of Nations, the body that preceded the United Nations) after the Great War, was by creating a ruling elite from a minority group, the Sunni Muslims.

What went wrong? Lots of things.

1. The real motive for invading was to secure future oil supplies, as both the US and the UK were running out of oil. Clearly this motive could not be revealed hence the obfuscations - which did nothing to help gain public support. As one of your correspondents said: we're not as stupid as the politician think we are.

2. Whilst Bush and Blair may not have said so to each other in so many words, they both wanted to be war leaders - they took it for granted they would be successful war leaders - to improve their legacies.

3. Token support from the Allies. Even Australia - who sent the most soldiers - did not contribute anything like as large a proportion of its GDP as the UK did.

4. US, and subsequently, UK hubris.

Finally, can I compliment both Newsnight and Mark Urban for the many high quality reports produced.

What do the Genevea conventions say about the responsibilites of invading armies and occupying forces?

Snorri, Iceland

Many British universities have Middle East centres. Why did Blair rely on his personal M.E. expert, a Mr Bush? The so-far 134 lives of British soldiers could have been saved. In an ideal world, Blair would have entered the Tower of London via the Traitors' Gate and spent the rest of his life there, of course keeping his head on.

More and more people are coming to believe that things in Iraq are unfolding exactly as our fearless leaders want/wanted them too. If not, why was the infrastructure of Iraq dismantled? It should have been obvious the country would disintegrate into chaos.
Why was the insurgency not prepared for? It was claimed from the beginning that Al-Qaeda was involved in Iraq (remember the 9-11 link) and, obviously, Sadam鈥檚 supporters were not going to be pleased. Was it thought these people would go placidly into the hills?
Could it be that this war had nothing to do with bringing democracy but everything to do with having a Western base in the Middle East? If it was about democracy, democracy sure looks a lot like hell.
By the way, I鈥檓 not the first person to speculate about these things. The sad truth is, in the new world we live in, journalists and others who have dared to ask these questions have been ridiculed and dismissed. All we like sheep have gone astray, and the ones who would have chosen a different path we call traitors.
Google 鈥淚raq chaos infrastructure dismantled鈥� and scan the articles. Quite a number predicted what would happen as far back as 2003. Were they prophets foreseeing the future or were they simply following policies to their logical conclusion?

How much of the blame should be apportioned to poor military tactics and the militaries ability to adapt to the fluid situational changes once the invasion had taken place? How much blame should be attributed to politicians who seemed to believe that once Saddam was removed from power 'everthing would be ok'.

Surely the military, both UK and US, were hamstrung to a large degree by their political masters?

For a whole raft of resaons this must be one of the most poorly planned and executed campaigns that never should have been fought?

I had, and still have immense sympathy with the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime. I was and am sympathetic to having invaded the country for this purpose. but I am against all the lies, subterfuges, and petty minded hypocrasy, that came from the white house and that paragon of intellect and intelligence who is in charge there. we all know who that is. and his more intelligent friend Tony Blair. having a good reason is no an excuse for using bad and tainted means for carrying it out.
can I ask Mark Urban this, looking at the huge financial resources, and cost in human suffering and death, what possible reason could there be for this expenditure?. what can be the possible pay back for the US, economically , or reasons to justify what was this huge cost. surely it must be economic?.Or can it be solely strategic, and political, with no regard for the monetary cost at all?

was this a tony inspired conviction to support the usa right or wrong or was he persuaded by his foreign policy advisor team or were they delighted with his direction and just backed him up?

To understand what went wrong in iraq we have to understand what went wrong in the uk? When the decision in the uk is associated with lies, a death and the removal of a DG that must signal the existence of a powerful shadowland?

without the uk would the usa have gone alone?

the best insight into what went wrong are the pbs frontline shows like Rumsfelds War that can be watched again online.

My questions for Mark:

1. How much credence do you put to the constant claims by the British that they were against de-Baathification ? Is it just hindsight on the part of British officials and Ministers? Was there much private disagreement with this approach at the time? I think it's quite important to establish what happened because alot of British Cabinet Ministers have claimed that the Americans ignored British advice. Ditto the Tories claim they would have done things differently in this area. In your view would this have been possible or is this just wishful thinking?

2. There is often a huge amount of anti-Rumsfeld press rightly or wrongly. But can all the blame be pinned on him alone as many of the US military figures seemed to imply in your film last night and in Bob Woodward's 'State of Denial'? Is there an element of him being the easy scapegoat?

3. Is there an argument that the UN was far too hasty in pulling out when they did? Do you see any way that they can be persuaded to play a bigger role perhaps when the Americans start to leave?

Sorry I misspelled Geneva (comment no.22).

All the best,
Snorri Birgisson
in Iceland

>I have never seen any evidence that seizing oil, in the sense of taking US onwership of it, was a motive for the invasion. <<

i agree ownership of oil is not the problem but what of the ownership of the oil currency? what would be the effect upon the usa [and uk] economy of oil being traded in euros which was the opec threat before the invasion [and still is]? why did the usa return iraq oil from euros back to dollars? why have iran and venezuela etc trying to move as fast as they can to the petroleuro?

did not the iraq war save a 25 -40% crash of the usa economy [and so the uk] by keeping the second largest oil reserves in petrodollars?

currency markets can break countries fast? this petrol euro-petrol dollar war is still going on of which iraq is just one manifestation.

when the petroleuro no longer presents a significant threat to the usa economy they will leave iraq?

Money is power and as long as the money is right everything else is just noise and fury signifying nothing? :)

Hi Mark

Jeremy Greenstock on Thursday's Newsnight said that the UK had advised the USA 'privately' in 2003 that troop numbers were inadequate to police the occupation. Even though numbers were not increased, the UK still committed troops to Iraq. Does this mean that the UK recklessly or negligently sent those troops into danger knowing that the force was inadequate?

George McLean
Manchester

sir,
The us & uk political leaders,plan something in their minds(only God knows)and execute otherthings in the field(in iraq) resulting heavy loss of humanlives, properties,monuments, culture,decencies, and total loss to the whole human socities. The leaders refuse to think all these things, but they know pretty well all the matters. The big question is, why they don't take a tangential/fruitful action??? but it is possible. Jesus asked to show the other cheek.
-An ordinary man from India.

It is easy to forget Madeleine Albright saying 500,000 deaths of children was a price worth paying for sanctions against Saddam鈥檚 Iraq. A declared goal of the 1991 war over Kuwait was the removal of Saddam 鈥� as it did not happen, I concluded the US military were not that hot. From then until the 2003 invasion we were given to believe that Iraq was subjected to almost daily bombings by the US and UK forces through their no fly policy. Surely, at that point the Iraqi people must have been absolutely fed up of the West for its continued bombing and the hardships caused by sanctions. Faced with the prospect of a massive invasion, the Iraqi armed forces did the only logical thing 鈥� hide and pick off the foreign forces once they had arrived and settled. They have been remarkably successful in sustaining their defence. Targeting US/UK forces has commanded a heavy response from the US/UK military, which weakens the strength of the resistance. The merit of targeting Iraqis is a less brutish response, more sympathy for the Iraqis and continuing to present the situation in Iraq as a failure for those who invaded.

Moving forward, we may as well accept that the Iraqi resistance has won and successfully defended its country. If all foreign troops left tomorrow it is perfectly possible for the violence to stop immediately. It is not in the Iraqis鈥� interests to destroy their own country and weaken it further so that other states can take advantage of them. The Iraqis are perfectly capable of dealing with rogue elements who are stirring trouble. Now is not the time to decide whether Iraq is better reconfigured 鈥� better the Iraqi people give themselves timeout to rebuild their lives and calmly consider how they want to move forward. I do not buy the idea that the Sunnis and Shias want to massacre each other; but tensions make a case for a secular state.

A lesson learned from the collapse of the USSR was just how many Communists were happy to dump their party cards and become keen capitalists. In this we saw that being a member of the Communist party was a way to get on in life, just like some here obtain MBAs. It is just as reasonable to think the same of people who were part of the Baath鈥� party establishment. They could play a useful part in the future defence and security of the country, just without the torture and other abhorrent practices.

Iraq is in a terrible physical mess thanks to the US and the UK. I would personally like to see all those who propagated and voted for this dreadful war go and clean up the mess. An honest day鈥檚/decade鈥檚 work would do them good, restore some justice and save us from their pontificating.

The invasion should never have happened! It鈥檚 extraordinary that the US Congress; 4 years after the invasion, still debate whether or not to increase funding and troops to Iraq. Republicans talk about 鈥榳inning鈥� the war, and therefore saving face, as if the war hasn鈥檛 lost them all the respect they used to have. Moreover, who exactly is the enemy? Who do the Americans plan to conquer? They are foreigners in a sovereign country. Unless they plan to colonize Iraq entirely, it鈥檚 impossible to see how they can ever 鈥榳in鈥�. The Middle East has been abused by British, French and American imperialism for centuries and the hatred felt towards the West is only how anyone would feel given their history.

MARK URBAN

Very well done ... Thought your summary of the War years in Iraq was very well researched, crafted & presented. The best i've seen.

regards,
Brian Kelly

Would it not have been possible to have learned from the Vietnam experience i.e. that it is cheaper to have your 'enemies' make athletic apparel rather than to have to fight and bomb them?

I was a bit surprised that your comment in reply to peter,suggesting that oil was not the primary motivation for the US invasion of Iraq,as you say oil can be bought through countries such as Venezuela(not a guaranteed future smooth transaction from that particular supplier if tou take into account the view that the Venezuela's president Hugo Chevez has of the USA)I take the popular view that the USA has stratagised well before even the 9/11 to have a more active roll/gain a bigger influence in the middle east and the Bush administration with all its hawks certainly had the pretext for invading Iraq afer the 9/11 attacks,and when you deconstruct all the reasons and the manner this war was sold to the public,it poses some interesting questions
In the US the established news
media(FOX,CNN ect) will rubbish the claim, that oil and the US of wanting a greater influence in the middle east was the driving force behind this American led Iraq invasion,anybody who questions the Bush administrations agenda will be accused as a conspiracy nut not worthy of air time.And whilst i agree that there is a lot of rubbish out there, you can filter through it and get some revealing dark answers that this war was ,i believe totally illegal driven by greed and the real agenda has still not been thoroughly reported on the mainstream news media.
Your report was very good in asking all the questions, and listening to some remarks your contributors made helps us,the newsnight viewer in understanding what went wrong or debate its contents.
You as a reporter have all the 91热爆 production resources at your disposal.Can i suggest you do a special expose' of this war and the real agenda behind it, a film that could rival an Adam Curtis production.i will be your agent(25percent, thats your cut)your name in lights and every one clamouring for your autograph.we could make a fortune.there,thats my agenda and i am up front about it.Greeds a great motivator Mark,as Bush can tell you that for sure..

" I have never seen any evidence that seizing oil, in the sense of taking US onwership of it, was a motive for the invasion"

Dr Colin J Campbell, an Associate of Petroconsultants, which is a reputable international hydrocarbon consultancy, in his 鈥楽pecial Lecture鈥� to the Petroleum Exploration Society of Great Britain(PESGB) membership in May 1999, said:

鈥淭he United States鈥� own oil production has been in decline for 25 years in an irreversible terminal trend, and it is accordingly forced to import on a rising trend almost 8.5 Mb/d (million barrels per day), which is more than half of its needs. Western Europe imports slightly less at 7.8 Mb/d, which is now almost half of its requirement. Imports are set to rise radically as North Sea production peaks around 2000, and declines at a high depletion rate, typical of offshore extraction. But Japan and neighbouring countries import the most at almost 11 Mb/d, having negligible indigenous production. It seems obvious that these three heavy consumers of oil will be on a collision course for the control of oil reserves as prices rise and shortages appear. Their attention will be focused on the Middle East. The United States and Britain have already positioned a colossal military force in the area, having alienated and vilified three important suppliers: Iraq, Iran and Libya. The Gulf War, despite its immediate justification, could as well be termed the First Oil War. At the time of writing a second appears to have been only narrowly averted.

There is surely every good reason to study the issue of oil depletion better and above all secure better data on reserves so that governments are not tempted to apply military solutions to what in reality are the immutable physics of the reservoir holding a finite commodity formed long ago in the geological past.鈥� (The Future of Oil, PESGB, UK, May 1999).

................

鈥楶etroleum Economist鈥�, the international energy journal, in its December 2002 issue, confirms the carve-up and presents a broader US geopolitical strategy:

鈥�..The US state department is reported to be holding a meeting this month with Iraqi opposition members on the future of the country鈥檚 oil and gas sector once Saddam is gone. A working group 鈥� said to include some officials who have defected from the Iraqi oil ministry 鈥� is expected to make recommendations to any transitional government on how to rehabilitate the energy sector.鈥�

The article goes on to say:

鈥淥il seems to be a core reason for the US鈥� desire to get rid of Saddam but it is not the only factor.鈥�

.................

Thanks for answering my questions Mark. I forgot to say in my original post that your film last night was excellent it even warranted discussion in my 'American foreign policy since the Cold War' seminar at University this morning.

I would like to suggest two reasons. The first is ignorance; ignorance of everything Arabic in history, culture, and ethnicity coupled with a bulldozing attitude that brooked no appeals to sense or reason. No matter what the reasons for Bush wanting to go into Iraq it was his total ignorance and not wanting to know that spelled out the present disastrous situation. The second problem can be spelled out in one word - BUSHISM - this is a word coined by me to mean a lie made deliberately, unconscionably, in full knowledge that everyone will know that it was a lie but is made anyway to be able to fulfil one's own private agenda when all other means would fail. The lies Bush told to go into this war were so preposterous as to mean that virtually no other country in the world has any interest to assist with a solution right now. I believe Bush should be impeached in the U.S. as well as being hauled up before the World Court.

Mark Urban - thanks for the answers in #8

POST WAR - OBSERVATION:

Although pro-invasion myself (on any number of reasons), I will concede this point.

The British Government seriously believed British Forces would encounter NBC munitions (WMD).

As an ex-airborne warrior (Cold War variety) the norm in wartime (SOP) according to training, was NCR suit x 3 "noddy suits" (correction welcomed)

1 suit per person, could be expected to last upto 24hrs max, in heavy contamination. So with another suit to change into, then 2 suits would be the absolute minimum (not to go to war with, but just to protect the individual, frontline or REMF positions). The same with a canister for the respirator.

3+ suits would be the absolute tactical minimum for men in engaged in actual combat.

QUESTION:

If you have an answer, great, but just posing the questions to stir the juices of debate.

Q.1 how many suits & canisters per man, were British Forces deployed to Iraq in 2003, actually issued with? *

* let alone other kit: detection; fuller earths pads 'slap, bang, rub' variety; combo pens etc.

Q.2 what was medical provision for WMD & preventative treatments for British Forces deployed to Iraq in 2003?

If the answer (as I would NOW suspect) is way short of the actual personnel in theatre versus absolute minimum/maximum required, then given the New Labour government rational for war, they should have been held up on health & safety / negligence charges or similar.

vikingar

Mark Urban, if you have the time, three final questions:

Given Saddam Hussein would have eventually have been removed from power, regardless of how this was eventually achieved 鈥�*

* a) natural causes; b) assassination; c) removed after coup/another failed foreign adventure; d) coalition invasion

Q.3 was Iraq's descent into inner chaos an inevitable event & re-balance of sorts or not?

Q.4 given turbulent history of the country since Saddams time in power, with a dispassionate head on, do you think Iraq's neighbours sympathy is somewhat tempered by a belief that 'Iraq' had it coming & has reaped nothing more than the whirlwind it had sown? **

** in the same way many think the US had it coming, for its accumulated misdemeanours of its foreign policy over the years

Q.5 why do we not see any open acknowledgement & condemnation (in the same scale & persistance as anti-war protests) from the innumerable Muslims protest groups, ref the Islamic Fracticide, clearly ongoing in Iraq [1] ***

** the worst being, foreign Muslims are actually travelling to Iraq, not to take on the coalition, but to murder other Muslims of different sects (Sunni v Shia)

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1]

Prehaps if the US made any real foreign policy mistakes, it was defending Britain and liberating France and the rest of western Europe in World War II, and then rebuilding it. Why should American blood and money have been spilled because the British and French Peoples were so stupid, they elected governments which a) imposed impossible retribution against Germany which inevitably lead to the rise of someone like Adolf Hitler b) insanely allowed him to build up a vast military force, and c) was so stupid that it not only didn't pre-emptively destroy it but thought it could somehow reason with it when its very purpose was revenge against the victors of World War I and the conquest of Europe? It seems to be a lesson many in Europe and even in Britain never learned.

I find it outrageously hypocritical that ANYONE from Europe would DARE TO CRITICIZE the US for a) pre-emptively destroying Saddam Hussein's menace BEFORE it could become more dangerous and b) giving Iraqis at least the chance to get out from under a dictatorship every bit as brutal as Hitler's. Europeans including you Mr. Urban would deny Iraqis the same opportunity they were given themselves. That the Iraqis didn't take advantage of it is unfortunate but nobody could have forseen that their hatred for each other was far greater than their desire for their own peace and prosperity. A violation of international law because it was not sanctioned by a UN resolution? Even if lawyers could successfully argue against that the resolution authorizing the war in 1991 and the endless violations of the cease fire weren't justification, so what? Where was your vaunted Security Council resolution when you begged the US nine years ago to bomb Serbia into submission during the genocide in Kosovo? You know you wouldn't have gotten one, Russia would have vetoed it.

It is Europe today which is the real crime against humanity. And the punishment is the EU and its conversion into Eurabia.

A recent post mentioned that more people are being killed on the road then in the war in the US.

That was an argument used during the Viet Nam era.

This war is bound to boil up, you think it is a good idea to go around insulting all of Europe? That's not smart. We would want them on our side, why alienate them. Detachment and disinterestedness are smart.

"Prehaps if the US made any real foreign policy mistakes, it was defending Britain and liberating France and the rest of western Europe in World War II, and then rebuilding it."

Mark, you forgot to mention US also made an excellent business entering World War II. I don't think they were thinking precisely in defending people... IMHO, they 鈥搃n what concerns government policies鈥� have never thinked in that.

Snorri: "What do the Geneva conventions say about the responsibilities of invading armies and occupying forces?"

As Mark pointed out, the formal period of occupation was only June 2003 to June 2004 -- but the Geneva conventions are still highly relevant here, especially since that period overlapped with the abuses in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

There are cross-referenced copies of the conventions at www.genevaconventions.org. The parts most directly relevant to your question are Conventions III (Treatment of Prisoners of War) and IV (Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War).

One of the sources of controversy was claims by the Bush administration that the Geneva conventions covering "prisoners of war" did not apply to various people who the administration instead chose to class as "enemy combatants".
I am not a lawyer, but a straightforward reading of Convention III Art. 4 (which defines "prisoner of war") provides little support for that position. In particular note the following:

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Luis #57
The US made a business coup by entering world war II? That is not only very wrong, it makes no sense whatsover. The US national debt soared. Labor which could have produced consumer goods, machines which produced marketable items were turned to armaments which produce no additional wealth like machines do and while that may have been good for the armament manufacturers, it was disasterous for the economy as a whole. Price controls can't last forever and whenever there is a major war, there is always major inflation afterwards to pay for it. The US sent loans to the USSR of 900 million to fund its war effort and never saw a cent of it back. The US loaned Britain a fortune after the war at very favorable rates. It was finally paid off last year. Rebuilding Europe under the Marshall plan, more billions given away by the American taxpayer. And a lot more too if you read history. Who paid initially to rebuild Japan?

If there was one logical reason for the US to enter the war in Europe it's because it understood that if it didn't fight the Nazis there and then, it would have had to fight them over here later on. That's the same reason it invaded Iraq, not because Iraq was an immediate threat but becasue it was a growing threat that had to be stopped before it got too out of hand. That's the mistake Neville Chamberlain made, it's the same mistake opponents of the war in Iraq also made. The earlier you squash these problems, the less costly all around in the long run. Too bad about the Iraqi people though. Just more casualties of Saddam Hussein's war.

CALL ON ALL GRASSROOT MOVEMENTS FOR DEMOCRACY TO CALLS ON ALL MEN AND WOMEN TO MATCH WITH THE 6 WIDOWS OF BAGDAD TO GET CLEAR ANSWERS FROM THE BUSH AND MALAKI ADMINISTRATION.

ALL INVOLVED SHOULD BE HANDED OVER TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT IS TIME THE UN HEAR THE FAMILIES AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ATTROCITIES THAT OUR INVASION FACILITATED. IT IS TIME TO HOLD BUSH RESPONSIBLE. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ABDUCTION, TORTURE, RAPE, MURDER, IS NOT ACCEPTABLE WITH THE ENCOURAGEMENT AND FACILITATION OF THE AMERICAN FLAG.

CALL ON ALL PATRIOTS TO STAND AND BE COUNTED. OUR COUNTRY IS A DEMOCRATIC NATION. WE CAN'T BECOME MORE GROTESQUELY BRUTAL AND MURDEROUS THAN SADAM.

THE HEAD OF DEATH SQUADS IS PROMOTED TO THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE SO HE CAN LAY HANDS ON THE MONEY TO FINANCE THE SQUADS IF HE CAN NOT DIRECTLY CONTROL THEM.

I understand Hussein had made arrangements with the European Union to sell them his (?) oil, in euros. What would had been the economic consequences for the US?

"That's the same reason it invaded Iraq, not because Iraq was an immediate threat but becasue it was a growing threat that had to be stopped before it got too out of hand."

With this kind of arguments, a lot more of invasions could take place in the future. Arabs, indeed could use it for his advantage... or any other nation.
Who decides who are the bad guys? UN... US?

The U.S. military training pictures at the top of the package were a disappointing sight to see. How can we expect to leave Iraq in any better a state than it is now if this is what we are sending to the front?

responding to Tushar Sarkar:

your responce represent that fixed, collective view of a typically Arab/Islamist paranoid charactor, playing the game of being the victim of the colonising, agressive West (forgetting centuries of the Arab/islamic colonisation and invasion of other nation's lands), pointing the finger to everyone else eccept themselves ( U.S.A , Jews & their friends etc) as the source of their problems and refusing to take resposibility for their internal problems created by the injustices and crimes committed by the abusive tyrent rulers/dictators and blood thirsty Al-Qaeda in collaboration with the Baathists, in addition to the endless fatwas issued by the men of islam, the religious authority to carry out violence against Iraqi civilians. You are deluding yourself, talking about resistance. How can it be resistance when suicide bombers target students, children in schools, women and innocent Iraqis? yet you chose to close your eyes to these facts, either out of lack of awareness or due to your conditioning and cultural training of seeing all the evil outside of oneself to avoid the difficult task of self-examination. Otherwise, why do you continue with the Arab/islamic delusion of grandier and paranoia against the other "the evil non-moslem infidal". It is a psychological disturbance that is unfortunitely inhereted from generation to generation due to the lack of rational self-relection. But self-examination and reflection does require the capacity for critical thinking and the independence of the mind which the middele Eastern traditional culture and the tyrent ruler's educational system forbid for obvious reasons, thereby maintaining the centuries of backwardness, poverty, social injustices and lack of equality and freedom.

Mark

Am a huge fan: your work is awesome, cogent and (if analysis ever can be) gripping too.

Brassa.