Apologies for the delay, Gautam, but not only have I been snowed under work, my computer crashed and had to be reformatted. A lot has happened since I started writing this and instead of re-writing the whole thing, I have just added comments after 'NB', wherever a further comment seemed appropriate.
Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > Nope. I am glad that the majority of the Iraqis are > > not giving up hope and declaring an all out war on > > the coalition but that doesn't make my statement 'questionable'. > > Living with constant uncertainty > > *is* tiring and analysts/politicians ought to keep > > that in mind *before* an entire country is pushed to > > the point of open,armed rebellion > > But this doesn't track at all with what I said. True, but neither do the events of the last one month. Y'see, even the though the majority of the Iraqis want the Coalition to stay, there is a significant number of Iraqis [Prof. Cole puts them around 3 mn] who think that an attack on the Coalition troops is justifiable. That's not an insignificant number, and depending on what happens with Sadr and in Fallujah, that number might soon rise even more. The US doesn't have the troops to handle that kind of an uprising. My point was that this should be kept in mind while formulating policies, instead of assuming that the best case scenario is the only possible option. > The > majority of Iraqis _in opinion polls that have been > taken by independent organizations_ do not want the > Allied forces to leave. They want us to stick around. That is true. They don't have an army and they don't trust their neighbours. Also, given that they have launched invasions onto other countries, it would be easier for them to expect the same from others. NB: The figures have changed apparently and the new prognosis isn't quite as good. > > For all I know, you might be right but that is not > > what I've read. The latest news report I've read on > > the subject stated that although the coalition has > > been stating that the electricity levels have > > reached pre-war levels and above, the truth is that > > it took almost an entire year to reach that level > > briefly before things started crumbling. This > > article can be found somewhere in the last 10 > > entries or so of the blog 'Fair and balanced War > > News'. I don't have time to look for it right now, > > though - am rather busy these days. > > Ritu, I know the Indian press, and it's _virulently_ anti-American. I > still read the Deccan Herald on occasion. I haven't ever read the Deccan Herald so I can't comment on that. But which other newspapers have you read and do you find them all virulently anti-American? I subscribe to 3 English dailies and 3 Hindi dailies and I must say that I have not noticed any virulent anti-Americanism is either of the 6 newspapers. However, to get back to the subject, the blog I recommended is the blog of a retired US marine and that particular article was from an American newspaper. I can't recall reading a single article on Iraq which was written by an Indian journalist - I don't think there's anybody out there. The Indian press is currently busy covering the Indian elections and informing us of Vajpayee's gall and Rahul Gandhi's heatstroke. Well, four days ago, there was a delightful picture of an electronic voting machine strapped on the back of an elephant, being delivered to its destination village. NB: I still don't think any Indian journalist is out there but ex-Indian army officers are working there as 'private contractors'. A few days ago, there was an article on them in the Times of India. > I'm also pretty familiar with the status of things in Iraq, for > obvious reasons, and things are quite clearly improving in terms of > basic infrastructure - despite the constant attempts by the insurgents > to cripple them. It is those obvious reasons you cite above which make me wonder if you can take an objective view of the news coming from Iraq. Yes, sure, things are improving. After all, billions of dollars and 12 months have been spent on the resconstruction of Iraq - if there was absolutely no improvement, it would have been rather strange. But the question is if they are improving fast enough to prevent the situation fom spiralling out of control. Given the various violent influences that the Iraqis have recently been exposed to, it is a tad unrealistic to expect them to stay placidly patient even after an year or so. The picture you paint is rosier than the one in a recently leaked CPA memo: http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0416/040420_news_iraq.php NB: You might have already read it - Doug posted it here before I had a chance to. :) You might wish to check out the guest commentary on Professor Cole's blog today. Ray Close, former CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia, talks about the implication of handing Fallujah over to the Iraqi forces and a few other things. http://www.juancole.com/2004_04_01_juancole_archive.html#108334410231997 623 > > Mmm, you might want to read all the articles about > > the Iraqis who have been arrested and imprisoned for > > weeks before being released. They all seem to find > > living this way rather difficult. > > I'm sure they do. They also seem to prefer it to > being, you know, tortured and then executed. You > could, I suppose, bribe people under Saddam's regime > to find the shattered remains of whoever was taken > into custody. Somehow I don't think _anyone_ thinks > that was preferable to the current situation. Why do you assume that they are not capable of visualising an alternative which includes neither living in war zone, nor under a murderous tyrant? Just because Saddam made their life miserable doesn't mean they have to like living under the present circumstances. And if they don't, how long do you expect them to patiently accept the presence of the Coalition? And if their patience runs out, how do you expect the Coalition to handle the violence which would be unleashed? > Your > argument above boils down to this is non-ideal, the > old situation was non-ideal, therefore they are the > same. That's specious. It certainly is not, not when the topic under discussion is the quality of their lives. So earlier Saddam's men arrested, tortured and executed them. Now, depending on where they live, the Coalition troops could be strafing them, thugs kidnapping and executing them, terrorists blowing them up. What on earth is specious about saying that they might not consider that an improvement in the quality of their lives? > > Nope, they are just made to spend days transferring > > excreta from one barrel to the another with the help > > of a spoon! Infinitely better than being shredded > > alive but still not an optimal way to treat > > prisoners, wouldn't you say? > > I'm sorry, you have evidence for this? I can't seem to find that article right now and the history on my compu has been erased. So let me just withraw this bit until I stumble across that article again. NB: On the other hand, you might wish to consider the recent reports as alternate evidence. > Again, your > argument boils down to - you aren't perfect, so you're > no better than Saddam Hussein. Nope. That's not my argument, merely your perception of my argument. > > I think you are slightly confused Gautam. I don't > > *have* to believe either Saddam's propaganda or the Coalition's. > > Again, the moral equivalence. "Saddam's propaganda or > the Coalitions"? You think they're somehow > equivalent? Have the rules of the English language changed after this war? That would be the only reason you would read moral equivalence in the words 'Either...or'. I guess if I were to insist that I don't want my room painted either black or white, you'd classify me as colour blind. For that is what your argument boils down to. I have a question for you here - why are you so eager to assume that every one sees a moral equivalence between Saddam's reign and the Coalition's actions? Frankly, it seems like a rather ridiculous assumption to jump to. > You think if I get to go to Iraq I'll be attaching car batteries to > people's genitals for my own amusement? You think I'm implying that? Based on what? > That was a > routine happening in Saddam's Iraq. Don't insult everyone over there > right now by somehow claiming that the two are even vaguely the same. Saddam's Iraq and the Coalition's Iraq are same in so far as neither are places where I would willingly take my four-year old daughter to live and grow up. Neither could be considered to provide a safe and secure environment. And I am not the only person in the world who thinks so, not given all the warnings a lot of countries [UK too] have given to their citizens and businessmen. Things are bad, things are tense and there doesn't seem to be a quick, easy, magical way out of the morass. I don't know how stating a fact could be construed as an insult to everyone over there but I am sure you can explain that. > > Thanks to the net, I can actually read > > the world's coverage of the events in Iraq > > [including things written by Iraqis and the > > Americans] and form my own picture of the situation > > there. Now, I fail to see why believing that things > > aren't perfect atm or that the same could lead to > > other, bigger problems makes me an apologist for > > Saddam but I'm sure you can explain that charge. In > > case I haven't made it clear, I'm asking you to do > > the same. > > > > Ritu > > Neither of those makes you an apologist for Saddam. > Believing that things were _better under Saddam_, or > even _no worse under Saddam_ makes you an apologist > for Saddam. Dan and I have laid this out quite > clearly in other posts, but one more time. > > Saddam was, by most estimates, killing tens of > thousands of innocent people every year. He had > hundreds of thousands of political prisoners. He used > rape, torture, and mass execution as routine > instruments of state policy. Life in Iraq before > Saddam's overthrow was a constant fear punctuated by occasional > moments of sheer terror. I would recommend Kanan Makiya's _Republic > of Fear_ or the work of the Indict project if you doubt any of that. > > If you think that the situation now is no better than > that, than either you believe that the US is doing > such things - or you believe that he wasn't. It's > that simple. I am beginning to understand that it is indeed that simple for you. However, it isn't that simple for me. As far as I can make out, being asked to chose between Saddam's reign and the present situation is akin to presenting someone with Hobson's choice. I don't know about you but I have neither lived in a war-zone, nor under a murderous tyrant. However, I am very sure that I want to raise my daughter under neither conditions [you'll notice that I didn't say I wouldn't go there but I don't consider that a valid criteria - I am rather curious and definitely mad and would go anywhere to satisfy my curiousity]. So, I find it hard, not to mention morally repugnant, to insist that the lot of the common Iraqi has improved significantly over the last year. I am willing to accept, and indeed I strongly hope, that this entire exercise would one day result in a stable, democratic Iraq. But I simply cannot claim that that has already happened. Now, look at the entire issue from another perspective: Let's say one year from today, OBL is caught [or Al Zwahiri]. However, the terrorist attacks happen more frequently in the US, perhaps even 2-3 a day. If, at that time, someone were to hold that it is not certain that the arrest of OBL has improved the quality of life for the Americans, would you assume that they are OBL-sympathisers and insulting the brave forces who captured OBL or would you be willing to concede that they might have different criteria than the capture of just one man for judging the quality of life? Ritu
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
