Category Archives: Iraq

Winning Hearts and Minds in Iraq

Every day, we're getting better in every way, and yes, the good news is that they just love us in Iraq.

Or, then again, maybe not: When even your hand-picked cabinet members resign in disgust, you're really doing great.

Posted in Iraq | 2 Comments

So Much for Denials About Explosives Really Being at Al Qaqaa

The LA Times has the story a couple of days late: Soldiers Describe Looting of Explosives.

Four more years of incompetence to look forward to. Followed in each case by coveups and lying. What a delight.

Actually, the next act in this play, if it follows the script, is the 'breaking of the President' moment, whose ordinary run was delayed by 9/11. But consider that the 9/11 commission will be getting to the good stuff, the Plame investigation should lead somewhere, and perhaps now that the election is over some honest Republican in Congress will start to investigate torture by US armed forces and (I can dream, can't I?) by the CIA.

Posted in Iraq | Comments Off on So Much for Denials About Explosives Really Being at Al Qaqaa

100,000 Iraqi Civilians Dead — Most From Bombing

Huge banner headline in the (left-of-center) Guardian today: 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, says study. The study to which it refers was published by the Lancet, Britain's most respected (and peer reviewed) medical journal. It used sampling, but looks serious.

Although some of the casualties are due to things like an increase in infant mortality because women are unable or too frightened to go to hospitals to deliver, the great bulk of the deaths is civilians killed by aircraft bombings or helicopter-launched munitions.

The amount of civilian casualties is sufficiently high to call into question whether the US has complied with the (rather vague) laws of humanitarian warfare.

Update (10/30): Slate has a good article noting the gigantic margin of error admitted by the authors of the report — so large as to call into question their publicizing the midpoint of a range of possibilities from 8,000 to almost 200,000.

Posted in Iraq | 3 Comments

Operation Truth Seems Like a Good Cause

Operation Truth, the makers of this video, seems like a good cause.

In the unlikely event you have a few dollars to spare…

Posted in Iraq | Comments Off on Operation Truth Seems Like a Good Cause

Kerry’s Iraq Plan May Be Much Less Daft Than It Sounds

John Kerry was not my first choice candidate, but I've always thought he was basically ok. And after the debates I felt better about him. Nevertheless, as is inevitably the case, there are a handful of policy areas where I disagree or find him wanting. One is the slightly protectionist tinge to his rhetoric (but note that the other guy is even worse on fair and free trade: actions, like the steel tariff, speak louder than words).

Probably my least favorite Kerry policy has been his 'plan' for Iraq, which I took to be a politically expedient non-starter. About the only thing I found plausible in Bush's reactions to Kerry was his question as to why on earth any ally of ours would want to step into the Iraqi quagmire caused by Bush's horrible errors of judgment. Ok, that's not exactly how Bush put it, but it's close enough to make the point.

But see reality: It turns out Kerry may know what he's talking about (spotted via Talkleft): the Germans have opened the door to entering the Iraq coalition in a Kerry administration. Advantage Kerry.

It may be of course that the Germans are just blowing smoke because they so hate GW Bush that they want him out of office. Think about that: Normally incumbents support each other internationally, or at least stay neutral. Now here's another one of our major allies who so hate the current administration that they're willing to go out on a limb for the challenger. (South Korea is an earlier example: they loath and despise current US policy on North Korea and regional security. I bet they don't like Bush protectionism either.)

Posted in Iraq | 5 Comments

More from the ‘Buck Stops WHERE?’ Dept

Newsweek has an informative article about the apostasy of L. Paul Bremer III and the White House attempt to put the lid back on. But it buries the lead lede, and misses the real point in an interesting and sadly predictable way.

MSNBC – Inner Circle No More? At the heart of the controversy is a still-unresolved dispute over who was mainly responsible for one of the biggest mistakes of Bremer's 15-month tenure in Iraq, one that is commonly ascribed to him. This was the decision in May 2003 to reverse the efforts of Bremer's predecessor, retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, to put the ragged elements of the Iraqi Army to work. After Bremer formally disbanded the army, some disaffected soldiers were believed to have joined the insurgency, which still rages.

Administration officials said today that this decision was made on the ground in Iraq, rather than in Washington. Before the war, the plan was to get rid of Iraqi Army officers but use regular troops for security and reconstruction after Saddam's ouster. But Bremer “flipped that around,” said a White House official. He added that Bremer and his deputy, Walt Slocombe, made the decision by themselves.

But Bremer and Garner have previously indicated the decision was made in Washington. According to one official who attended a meeting that Bremer had with his staff upon his arrival in Baghdad in mid-May of 2003, Bremer was warned he would cause chaos by demobilizing the army. The CIA station chief told him, “That's another 350,000 Iraqis you're pissing off, and they've got guns.” According to one source who was at the meeting, Garner then asked if they could discuss the matter further in a smaller meeting. Garner then said: “Before you announce this thing let's do all the pros and cons of this, because we are going to have a hell of a lot of problems with it. There are a hell of a lot more cons than there are pros. Let's line them all up then get on the phone to [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld.” Bremer replied: “I don't have any choice. I have to do this.” Garner then protested further, but Bremer cut him off. “The president told me that de-Baathification comes before the immediate needs of the Iraqi people.”

That Bush himself is directly and personally responsible for one of the major boneheaded judgments of the post-invasion period explains a lot. It should have been the lead lede of the story, not that poor Mr. Bremer can expect a horse's head in his bed Real Soon Now.

But lurking behind the story is yet another example of the soft bigotry of low expectations. Somehow, GW Bush is only potentially responsible for errors he personally orders? He has no responsibility for how his team screws up? Even when he keeps them around?

Talk about teflon!

Posted in Iraq, Politics: US: GW Bush Scandals | 6 Comments