August 23, 2004
@ 12:20 AM
Comments [19]
We Had To Destroy The Village To Save It

From a Sports Ilustrated Article entitled Iraqi soccer players angered by Bush campaign ads 

Afterward, Sadir had a message for U.S. president George W. Bush, who is using the Iraqi Olympic team in his latest re-election campaign advertisements. In those spots, the flags of Iraq and Afghanistan appear as a narrator says, "At this Olympics there will be two more free nations -- and two fewer terrorist regimes."

(To see the ad, click here.)

"Iraq as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for the presidential campaign," Sadir told SI.com through a translator, speaking calmly and directly. "He can find another way to advertise himself."

Ahmed Manajid, who played as a midfielder on Wednesday, had an even stronger response when asked about Bush's TV advertisement. "How will he meet his god having slaughtered so many men and women?" Manajid told me. "He has committed so many crimes."

"The ad simply talks about President Bush's optimism and how democracy has triumphed over terror," said Scott Stanzel, a spokesperson for Bush's campaign. "Twenty-five million people in Iraq are free as a result of the actions of the coalition."

To a man, members of the Iraqi Olympic delegation say they are glad that former Olympic committee head Uday Hussein, who was responsible for the serial torture of Iraqi athletes and was killed four months after the U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq in March 2003, is no longer in power.

But they also find it offensive that Bush is using Iraq for his own gain when they do not support his administration's actions. "My problems are not with the American people," says Iraqi soccer coach Adnan Hamad. "They are with what America has done in Iraq: destroy everything. The American army has killed so many people in Iraq. What is freedom when I go to the [national] stadium and there are shootings on the road?"

I find the We had to destroy the village to save it mentality an interesting and perhaps uniquely American perspective.  Based on some of the comments in my post So Why Are You Voting For George W Bush? it seems there are still people who feel the financial and human cost of the war in Iraq was worth it both for selfish reasons (it distracts Islamic terrorists who'd probably be focusing on attacking the American mainland) and for the fact that the war has made the Iraqi people "better off" despite the fact that many of them have gone from living in a relatively stable country to living in a bombed out warzone. This is a very interesting peek into the American psyche.

UPDATE: Based on some of the comments to this entry I decided to further clarify what I find so interesting. After it became clear that there were no WMDs in Iraq or strong ties to Al-Qaeda and 9/11 the reaction to this from the Bush Administration and American people could have been regret and sorrow (”I can't believe we killed thousands of civilians and spent billions of dollars without just cause”). Instead the Bush administration and certain portions of the American public instead have have reacted by stating that this invasion is actually good for Iraq and America should be commended for rescuing the Iraqi people. The reaction and the mentality behind it aren't what I'd expect after such a significant folly. Of course, history will be the judge of whether the current belief that America's interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq will improve the lives of the people of these nations for future generations.


 

Categories: Mindless Link Propagation

« My Current Writing Queue | Home | The MSDN Camp vs. The Raymond Chen Camp »
Monday, 23 August 2004 08:25:21 (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
As an opposite side I find "Condemn liberators" mental pattern to be sort of archetypical. Russian history is full of of such repeating patterns - the most liberal Russian emperor was assasinated, millions were crying when bloody dictator Stalin died and Gorbatchev is the most hated politician as he freed them from the commies. People are really srange species.
oleg@tkachenko.com (Oleg Tkachenko)
Monday, 23 August 2004 13:47:39 (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Not to be trollish, but without the coalition, these people would have been under the very charming Uday and Qusay (who was it that used to torture Iraq's athletes?)

"We had to destroy the village to save it" is a poor way to state my feelings on the subject (my country did not commit troops to Iraq though I wish it did). A better way to put it would be "we had to destroy the village to save a nation" -- quite possible even a region.

On a more rational note, The Iraqi national team's reaction to the ad is a red herring. Expecting gratefulness from the Iraqis for being 'liberated' is wrong, and anyone expecting that is deluded. Germany was mostly pretty happy about America not 10 years after WW2. So were the Japanese, and they'd been just been nuked.
Anonymous
Monday, 23 August 2004 15:29:28 (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
" Based on some of the comments in my post So Why Are You Voting For George W Bush? it seems there are still people who feel the financial and human cost of the war in Iraq was worth it both for selfish reasons (it distracts Islamic terrorists who'd probably be focusing on attacking the American mainland) and for the fact that the war has made the Iraqi people "better off" despite the fact that many of them have gone from living in a relatively stable country to living in a bombed out warzone."

What are you talking about? I re-read the comments in that post, which I participated in, and there was one comment related to the war which essentially said 'Bush didn't lie'. Not one post even implying what you just said. You'd make a good politician, you implied something in the complete abscence of facts. The only mistake you made is that you linked back to your 'source' making it easier to fact-check you. Not that it matters. Much like the press and the politicians and Scoble, you made your point on the front page and the retractions will be buried back on page 22 of the comments.

Scott
Monday, 23 August 2004 15:35:53 (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
"it seems there are still people who feel the financial and human cost of the war in Iraq was worth it ...for the fact that the war has made the Iraqi people "better off" despite the fact that many of them have gone from living in a relatively stable country to living in a bombed out warzone."

I think you're focusing on a very narrow topic. This seems to be the equivalent of saying "it seems there are still some people who feel visiting the doctor is worth it despite the fact that he amputated their legs." If the alternative is gangrene spreading to the point where you'd be dead, I'd say the treatment, while unpleasant, was certainly better.

The truth of the matter is that reality doesn't fit nicely into analogies or simplifications. War is ugly. Good, innocent people are mutilated and are maimed and are labeled "collateral damage." It is repugnant. But so is living under brutal oppression. Being tortured for losing a race or a game or for yearning to be free or for speaking out against injustice is equally repulsive. Yet many of us are content to not think about these atrocities just as we pretend not to see the homeless on our streets begging for nickles and dimes. All a good man has to do for evil to prevail is nothing. Today there are brutally opressive regimes on almost every continent. From Cuba to Sudan, thousands of ordinary folk are beaten, threatened, tortured and killed every day. This is the way it was in Iraq (and continues to be in some parts to this day). The sacrifice of the soldiers and civilians was not and is not in vain. It is true that Iraq is not yet safe and stable and that its people are as yet unable to enjoy the benefits of living in freedom. Perhaps as Kerry says he'll be able to for a broad coalition of countries that can see the nobility and necessity of sending their brave youth to combat evil and opression even at the cost of their lives.
Christian Romney
Monday, 23 August 2004 16:13:07 (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
"it seems there are still people who feel the financial and human cost of the war in Iraq was worth it both for selfish reasons (it distracts Islamic terrorists who'd probably be focusing on attacking the American mainland) and for the fact that the war has made the Iraqi people "better off" despite the fact that many of them have gone from living in a relatively stable country to living in a bombed out warzone. This is a very interesting peek into the American psyche."

This shows a truly ugly side of you. You dismiss people who are looking out for their own welfare. And at the same time you imply that as long as some people are "better" off than what's the harm? Disgusting. I would infer that you work at MSFT solely for pleaseure, you take no compensation above what it takes for you have a modest place to live, eat modest food, and wear modest clothes, etc.? Right? Living better would seem selfish. You don't believe in car alarms or house alarms do you? Its selfish right? You statements would also say you find conditions in places like the Sudan and Rwanda acceptable simply because it is stable enough and some people are living well. No need to interfere. Its not our place to. right? right? It sad to see you let your hatred warp your sensibilities. Maybe you oughta take a deeper look into your own, never mind peek, just shine the light right in.
brian
Monday, 23 August 2004 16:48:43 (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
This is going to be a fun thread.

Scott,
It seems you left that discussion early. My blog post is a summary of the comment by 'Scotty W'. James Robertson also mentions about 'taking the fight over there' as well. James also seems to imply that invading Iraq was OK because better safe than sorry. I thought this was a particulary callous sentiment but since he was the only one that gave that impression I decided not to focus on it in this post.

Christian and brian,
I've lived in a country with dictators who jailed critics and murdered opponents. This has directly affected members of my family (Google is your friend) so I probably more perspective about this than most Americans. I don't believe for a second that liberating Iraq would ever have been enough reason to justify the war, it is just a straw the Bush administration has clutched to now that it seems there are no WMDs nor any strong ties to Al-Qaeda and 9/11. However I find it interesting that Americans feel they can play God (i.e. we are sacrificing these thousands of civilians to make millions of people 'free' in the future) on the behalf of the citizens of other countries. It is an extremely arrogant viewpoint and one that treats human life as if they are pawns in a chess game. Thinking back now I do remember during the bad times back home wishing that the US would do something to save our country so I definitely do believe there are Iraqi people who are happy that the US came. This doesn't change my opinion of the mindset it takes to make or endorse such decisions.
Dare Obasanjo
Monday, 23 August 2004 19:04:15 (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Dare,

I agree with you that the Iraq war was wrong and immoral if it was based on "liberating the Iraqi people" or "to get WMDs that we know about". I seem to recall that the war was started for a different reason, though.

But first, I would be curious if you feel that war is ever justified? As I understand it, there are really only three reasons that people generally accept the use of military force. Which of these three do you accept?

A) Self-defense. To repel an attacker. This can always be taken unilateraly. We could have claimed self-defense if we knew that Saddam had WMDs and was planning to use them. However, this was not the excuse used for the Iraq war.

B) Prevent Genocide. For example, to prevent the situation in Sudan. I think we should have intervened in Rwanda and Ethiopia/Eritrea as well. I think the Bush talk of "liberating the Iraqis" is meant to appeal to this idea, but to be sure, this was never a stated goal of the Iraq war. This is revisionism in the case of Iraq. Plus I think that action to stop genocide whould never be taken unilateraly.

C) Preemption. This is the new "Bush doctrine", and is what was used to justify the Iraq war. The doctrine says that a nation has a right to act unilaterally to prevent a threat before it becomes a threat. The US could not prove that Iraq did not have WMDs, and Iraq did not cooperate with the UN, so the UN voted unanimously to authorize force.

It's important to make that distinction, because Bush was always very clear about the reasons for war. Bush very clearly said that he could not be certain if Iraq had WMDs or not; but that we should go to war anyway (in fact, Kerry has publicly said that he feels the same -- he would have gone to war in Iraq even without proof of WMDs). Perhaps some hawks in the media tried to sell it to the public by claiming that "we can prove they have WMDs" or "to liberate the oppressed Iraqi people". But when Congress and the UN both authorized force, it was very clearly based on the argument of "C", and *not* for self-defense or "liberating oppressed people". Those other arguments are a red herring.

Now, I suspect that your personal disagreement is with reason "C". The idea of preemption is not widely popular, and reminds some people of Hitler's excuse for invading Russia. But it is nevertheless no secret that this is the doctrine used by Bush, Congress, and the UN to authorize force in Iraq.
Joshua Allen
Monday, 23 August 2004 20:39:41 (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Joshua I'm confused, or maybe you're confused:

"...so the UN voted unanimously to authorize force."

So what were the permanent security council members France, Russia and China complaining about the decision by the US, UK and others to go to war? Plus Germany and the vast majority of the rest of the United Nations members?

As for the current administration not being sure about WMD in Iraq, I don't remember Colin Powell being very hesitant in his presentation to the UN with satellite photos, intercepted radio broadcasts etc.

Cheers
Pete Jones
Monday, 23 August 2004 21:10:07 (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
George Bush's actions were fairly vigilante like if you ask me. He claimed to have lots of evidence, took it to court/UN and when he didn't get the outcome he wanted from the court/UN he went ahead anyway. And now it turns out that all the evidence he had has come to nothing.
Pete Jones
Monday, 23 August 2004 23:19:39 (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Pete, the resolution authorized use of force, did not require any additional authorization for the U.S. to invade, and was approved unanimously -- even Syria voted for it. Not everyone was happy [0], but it was unambiguous and unanimous.

The resolution [1] did not require that WMDs actually exist to justify the use of force. In fact, the resolution went on ad nauseum saying that the reason for using force was that Saddam had not done enough to allow the world community to verify his compliance. The authorization for force was purely a matter of verifying compliance (and thus "preemption") despite what you would like to believe.

Germany and France did not want to send their own troops, and there was certainly some bickering about that (as well as political theatre to please the voters at home). But both countries fully authorized the coalition to invade.

I find it interesting that the critics want to forget what actually happened and rewrite history in conflict with the recorded facts. This always was a preemptive war, and I guarantee that John Kerry would have submitted the same resolution (he even says so), and it would have passed unanimously for him as well. Also, the UN resolution authorizing the coalition-led force and the transfer of power was unanimous. Say what you want about "unilateral", but this entire thing has happened with the full complicity of Europe through a series of unanimous UN resolutions, and the idea that anything would have been different with John Kerry is a joke. This is Empire America, and it is far bigger than the president. At most, all John Kerry promises is that if he had declared war, the French would have been more friendly to our tourists -- they certainly wouldn't have sent troops regardless.

[0] http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/nov2002/un-n09.shtml
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/
Joshua Allen
Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:35:45 (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
From [0]:

"Initially, both France and Russia had insisted that the Security Council take a second vote on whether to authorize military action against Iraq in the event that the country was found in noncompliance with the weapons inspection regime. That demand, however, was dropped in the face of Washington’s intransigence."

....

"In the end, the resolution promises only that the Security Council will meet to “consider the situation” should Iraq be charged with interfering with weapons inspections."

....

"the final resolution, which does not specifically authorize a unilateral US attack, but does not prohibit one either."

"France, Russia and China have all opposed a unilateral war against Iraq"

So France, Russia and China were bullied into a resolution which didn't *explicitly* prohibit a unilateral US attack. But that doesn't mean they *explicitly* encouraged or condoned a unilateral US attack either. In fact they tried to include a clause about having a followup vote on the issue.

And when that failed they ended up with a very weak compromise of agreeing to have the Security Council meet to "consider the situation".

During the subsequent meetings of the Security Council did they (Fr, Ch, Ru) ever explicitly condone the US attack. I seem to remember exactly the opposite, but maybe you'll provide links to some of the minutes ;-)

If it was just the case of France not wanting to send their own troops, but actually condoning the unilateral US attack would there have been any reason for the US Congress to rename French fries to Freedom fries?

[0] http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/nov2002/un-n09.shtml
Pete Jones
Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:37:49 (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Joshua, on your list of possible reasons for justifying war you mention option C - Preemption.

And state that was Bush's main justification, i.e. to "..prevent a threat before it becomes a threat..".

In this case the threat was spelt out to be Saddam's WMD, his links to terrorists etc. In this case the threats have turned out to be non-existant threats, and as Dare mentions there isn't any sign of regret or sorrow once this became clear.

Also in the case of using preemption based on threat claims that turn out to be false/incorrect, it does create a problem of trust for future cases where there may well be a real and present danger. Like the boy who cried wolf....
Pete Jones
Wednesday, 25 August 2004 05:21:22 (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Pete,

How does one bully another country into voting at the UN? If this were true why would they want a follow up vote since we would just bully them again? why didn't they introduce one?

Whether a country explicity condones an attack is irrelevant if the resolution passes that promises severe consequences if Iraq did not cooperate 100%. And if memory serves, they were not even close to that number.

Re: France. Let's count the ways our "friends" have acted. Prior to 9/11 they pushed to have sanctions reduced for Iraq b/c their state oil company had big big shares in Iraq's oil fields. When the resolutions were up for a vote. Instead of just saying they would vote no, France sent Villepin to all the swing countries to apply pressure on them. France publicly attacks our position. So did France just refuse to send troops? No! They actively fought against us. If they did not want to be part of it, that's fine, instead they chose to be on the other side. Not too keen on freedom fries but I do not buy any French goods. I will not visit France. That's my choice.

Bush did not have a main justification, he had many. Why must there only be one justification? I consider Iraq a place where any and all groups would find a legitimate reason to remove Hussein. Human rights. Female rights. Corruption. Murder. Rape. Funding terrorists. Take your pick.

I will like our government to err on the cautious side. We did not invade Iraq at a moments notice. We went through agonizing months of useless inspections and uncooperative gov't. There was no rush. It was a long stroll through the woods.

Dare,

"However I find it interesting that Americans feel they can play God (i.e. we are sacrificing these thousands of civilians to make millions of people 'free' in the future) on the behalf of the citizens of other countries. It is an extremely arrogant viewpoint and one that treats human life as if they are pawns in a chess game"

I think this is pure jealousy on your pride, national pride? You feel the same way about aid to countries? Do we have the right to play god and give people aid to save themselves? Maybe we should just let nature take its course. Take back the money to fight poverty. Take back the money to fight disease. Yeah. Who are we to interfere. Or is it ok to take the US $$ and then curse us out later for having to do so? I am a firm believer in self preservation on the personal and country level. To me, the safety and security of the US comes first. For you, it may be something else. So be it. We do what we can and you do what you can. Don't criticize us for our self interest when you watch out for your own self interest. That is hypocritical!
brian
Wednesday, 25 August 2004 19:14:44 (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Dare, I read those statements and didn't see the same points that you did. We were probably both predisposed to see our own point of view in those posts.

re: "However I find it interesting that Americans feel they can play God (i.e. we are sacrificing these thousands of civilians to make millions of people 'free' in the future) on the behalf of the citizens of other countries. It is an extremely arrogant viewpoint and one that treats human life as if they are pawns in a chess game"

I have to agree with brian in the previous comment. At what point should we revert to an isolationist foreign policy? Do we not provide disaster relief for Mexico or Iran? Do we let Germany invade Poland? Do we refuse to sell oil to Japan because of their military actions? Do we try to stop communism in Vietnam? Afghanistan? Russia? Do we stop the massacre in the Sudan? How about Somalia? Is it in our best interest to have Saddam out of power? How about Noreiga? How about King George? Lincoln? Should the Christians have tried to take back their holy land during the Crusades? What should we do about Israel and Palestine? How about England and Ireland? England in India? North Korea in South Korea? Iraq in Kuwait? Bosnia? What happens to the world if every country only looks out for itself?

Keep in mind that the situation in Iraq didn't magically appear after 9/11. Clinton lobbed cruise missles at them during his presidency, and was accused by the right wing of using the issue to cover up his small dress staining problem. Iraq has been defiant of U.N. sanctions for at least 10 years and stopped complying at all. People may believe they've been told that there was a link between Saddam and terrorists and 9/11 and that's why we went to war. But some of us believe that if you are the biggest person on the playground, you have a responsiblity to look out for the smaller people on the playground. Sometimes that includes smacking around someone who's trying to steal their lunch money. Sometimes it means sharing some of your pudding cup with them because they're parents are too poor to afford one. I like to think that's the reason that people immigrate here from other countries and that helping out other countries, either with force or with money, is what being a good neighbor is about. There are lots of policies that prevent us from being a good neighbor. I vote accordingly.

As for the Iraqi soccer players comments, I feel for them. I wish Bush had created a better plan for the invasion and post-invasion occupation. I wish he had consulted with other Persian countries more on how to handle the occupation, with an eye towards getting in, getting the job done, and getting out as quickly as possible. I'm for pulling out right now and just providing military advisors. I think that pulling out our forces will remove a large part of the resistance's argument. However the my entire military experience consists of playing "Starcraft" so unless we the resistance consists of Zerg worms I'm not much use.
Scott
Thursday, 26 August 2004 00:14:01 (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)

Pete,

You are right. I presented that particular link because it gives the most potent case against the UN resolution, thus giving you both sides of the story. However, the point is that even the worldwide socialists do not disagree that France and Germany signed the dotted line. You can say they betrayed their own people, which is true (popular opinion in those countries was against the war). But they did. I believe that all of the public acrimony from the French and Germans was to appease the voters in their own countries. They could have rejected the resolution, and talked very pleasantly to Bush; or they could sign the resolution while vocally opposing it to their populations. They chose the latter and got reelected, so I guess it worked for them.

Anyway, that is really my point. The "popular" reasons for going to war are the ones that Dare described. However, these were just smoke screen to rally the populations. Just like Roosevelt deployed pictures of scary-looking Germans during WWII to rally the population -- the reason for going to war never was that "Huns are ugly", and upon encountering an attractive German nobody would say "Oh my God! Roosevelt LIED! The war was a mistake!" People used to be sophisticated enough to separate propaganda from genuine national self-interest. The actual reason for going to war in Iraq was very clear, and had nothing to do with the popular propaganda.
Joshua Allen
Thursday, 26 August 2004 18:52:30 (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
""Iraq as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for the presidential campaign," Sadir told SI.com through a translator, speaking calmly and directly. "He can find another way to advertise himself.""

Maybe they liked Uday and Quasay better? Ungrateful louts.
ryan
Thursday, 26 August 2004 21:21:42 (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Replying mostly to the first comment about "condemning the liberators".
People only value liberty when they have food and shelter.
So, when somebody "liverates" by destroying or weakening a stable system, he's rightly condemned by the people. Also, national mentality should be ready to accept freedom and democracy. Iraquis are not ready. Russia was not ready in 1917. That's why only slow gradual changes can do it, not revolutions and coups.
Ilya Baimetov
Friday, 27 August 2004 09:23:00 (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
If the Americans bought the lies that the Bush team told about going to war, the rest of the world did not. Powell made a very clear presentation about the 'smoking gun', remember the so called mobile labs? Clearly the CIA agents have good training in use of photoshop! The reason number one for going to war was WMD. The second reason, though implied was the alleged association between Saddam and Osama. Living in a country that has been bombed twice by Laden and associates, I understood what the Americans were going through and even supported the military action.

I have now come to realise that I was conned. There was no WMD, no association with Isama. The whole story about liberating Iraqis is a red herring. Why didn't the Almighty America send troops to Rwanda when there was genocide, why has it been so reluctant on Sudan. The answer is really simple, the Americans have absolutely no 'interests' in these countries. 'nuf said.

Mbugua
Monday, 30 August 2004 04:11:42 (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)

Mbugua,

I find it hard to believe that you are only now realizing that nations act purely out of self-interest.

The thing that's most surreal about this is the way that the anti-war protestors think that they have found a solution in Kerry. Kerry made home videos of himself commiting war crimes, and surrounded himself with more military brass than an eastern bloc dictator for his nomination speech. He voted to invade Iraq. He has said repeatedly (and recently) that he would have invaded Iraq even without WMDs, and he is now arguing that we need to add at least two divisions of people (a HUGE increase) to the military. He's more hawkish than Bush. There is absolutely nothing about this guy that would appeal to an anti-war person, which perhaps explains why they distract us by Bush hatred rather than focusing on Kerry.

The only difference between Bush and Kerry is that Bush is a nationalist hawk while Kerry is an internationalist hawk.

I see a whole lot of sad disappointment for these people even if Kerry gets elected. These people think that Kerry would have kept us out of Iraq, or would have made the whole "war on terror" go away. This is pathetic wishful thinking, self-delusional clinging to the past. America will be in Afghanistan and Iraq for a long time, and the "war on terror" will drag on around the world. It doesn't matter which party is in power; these problems are not going away, and the leaders of the empire are not going to ignore them. The policy differences between Bush and Kerry with regards to "war and terror" are not substantial enough to satisfy the groaning masses of "war doesn't solve anything" people. Sorry!
Joshua Allen
Comments are closed.