Running Iraq like Saddam

[Vyan]

In recent days Bill O'Reilly has been again named "Worse Person in the World" by his best gadfly/nemesis Keith Olberman for suggesting that America should "run Iraq the way that Saddam did" in order to bring order to the chaos in the region.

On the same night as Olbermann's rebuke O'Lielly continued his diatribe going on to argue that American is losing the war because of the ACLU, Amnesty International, The International Red Cross, President Jimmy Carter and Air America Radio who have all heavily critized the U.S. for violating Geneva Conventions and committing possible War Crimes.

Although it's easy to blow-off these comments by O'Reilly I think his statements betray a mentality that has been at work all along - and ultimately knocks down the final piece of the "Noble Mission" canard.

We didn't go to Iraq to suppress WMD's - Saddam didn't have them and we knew it - and we didn't go to spread "democracy", not if we have to implement totalitarianism in order to do it.

We went there to project American Power, in and infantile display of dicks-man-ship - just like O'Reilly and his "Get Tough" rhetoric reveals.

Here's how O'Reilly laid it out.

O'REILLY: "Talking Points" believes the Bush administration has to stop being defensive about waging war. At this point, the new Iraqi government should declare martial law in areas controlled by insurgents. That means anyone can be arrested and shoot-on-sight curfews.

Saddam was able to control Iraq, as you know, and defeat insurgencies against him. The new Iraqi government can do the same, but it needs to get much tougher.

Let's examine for a moment how Saddam was able to defeat those insurgencies shall we? Following the first Gulf War, with his own forces essentially decimated by the air-barrage of U.S. B-52, Saddam surrender to U.S. led coalition forces - there was both a Shi'ite rebellion in southern Iraq and a Kurdish rebellion in the North against Saddam. His response to these insurrections was swift and brutal.

He used nerve toxin on them. Y'know - Weapons of Mass Destruction.

O'Reilly is far from alone is his view that America need to take off the "Kid Gloves". Micheal Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Bin Laden desk has long argued for a Total War strategy against Islamic extremism.

I've found Scheuer's writing most useful for it's detailed insights into Bin Laden and Al Qaeda's over-arching strategy prompting an American financial collapse - like that with brought the Soviet Union to an end following years of endless, fruitless battle in Afghanistan - rather than a strict military defeat. He also suggests that our best choices are to change our policies toward the Muslim world and attempt to reach-out and prove we aren't the enemy of Islam that they seem to think we are.

This makes sense, but Scheuer is a pragmatist and he realizes that this type of radical shift in strategy is highly unlikely, therefore he points out what just might be the inevitable. In his book "Imperial Hubris" he makes the following arguement.

Killing in large numbers is not enough to defeat our Muslim foes. With killing must come a Sherman-like razing of infrastructure. Roads and irrigation systems; bridges, power plants, and crops in the field, fertilizer plants and grain mills-- all these and more will need to be destroyed to deny the enemy it's support base. Land mines, moreover, will be massively reintroduced to seal borders and mountain passes too long, high, or numerous to close with U.S. soldiers. As noted such ations will yield large civilian casualties, displaced populations, and refugee flows. Again, this sort of bloody mindednes is neither admirable nor desirable, but it will remain America's only option so long as she stands by her failed policies toward the Muslim world.

Scheuer essentially idolizes Sherman, who burned an enoumous swath through the south in order to break the back of the Rebellion during our own Civil War. Tactics not unlike those used by Saddam Hussein. He argues that our efforts in Afghanistan have been "dainty" and largely ineffective -- the bulk of Taliban and Al Qaeda forces were able to easily avoid being captured and killed and have since spread worldwide, metastisizing into a Cancer that now affects Chechnya, Malaysia and has prompted the bombings of Schools, Planes (Russia), Trains (Madrid) and Subways (London).

He's not exactly a Bush fan. But neither was a he a fan of Clinton. His biggest errors in my opinion is his failure to recognize our success in Bosnia by using an overwhelming powerful force comprised of equal parts American, European and Russian forces against the massive confusion, chaos, ethnic cleansing of the Balkans. As well as our succes again the attempted disruption and insurgency by Al Qaeda (which as documented by Richard Clarke in his book "Against All Enemies" was anticipated and thwarted).

O'Reilly and Scheuer are far from alone in their way of thinking.

O'REILLY: All right, Colonel Hunt, I think we're at a tipping point here in the Iraq war. I think if America does not stop being on the defensive, and I mean militarily and in the war of public opinion, that we gotta get out of there. We either have to fight the war and win the war, or get the hell out.

HUNT: Yeah, I totally agree. We take the gloves off. Military leaders, take the gloves off. The soldiers know what they do. Get out of the way. Politicians, get out of the way.

But of course, like all True-Blue and RED Conservatives, O'Reilly can't help but find Liberals to Blame for our sad state of affairs in Iraq.

The Bush administration also needs to begin challenging those who are helping the enemy. The ACLU, for example, opposes just about every anti-terror strategy. This organization should be exposed.

The BBC also helps the enemy by consistently slanting the Iraq war coverage and portraying the coalition as villains. The vile Air America Radio network does the same thing.

<snip>

O'REILLY: All right, do you believe it's a tipping point, general?

McINERNEY: Yes, I do, Bill. And it's a tipping point in the will of the American people. We can't lose over there militarily. It's the will of the American people. And I call them "ACE" Democrats or "ACE" liberals -- aid and comforting the enemy.

O'Leilly also made the arguement that the ACLU and President Carter have hurt America by proclaiming that we torture detainees, even though America official policy is against toture. Well, sure the official policy says one thing - but apparently the Army Field Manual http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-torture5jun05,0,7975161.story%3Fcoll%3Dla-home-headlines&e=9797">now says something completely different.

The problem with all of this is the very strong probability that America took the "gloves" off a long time ago.

The 2004 attack on Fallujah which preceeded the first Iraqi election follows almost exactly the script that both Scheuer and O'reilly describe -- establish Marshall Law, completely disrupt the infrastrucure and oh yeah - use Chemical Weapons. (In this case, White Phosphorous, which literally melts skin).

The recent tragedy in Haditha also seems to support the contention that U.S. Forces are far from "holding back" in Iraq.

This entire line of reasoning ignores one crucial fact. We Don't Have A Large Enough Troop Footprint To Implement this kind of Strategey.

We don't have the manpower to implement Marshal Law and a "shoot on sight" curfew in Ramadi and also keep the insurgents from gaining a foothold elsewhere. The sad lessons of Fallajah and Afghanistan are that you have to cover every possible escape before you try and spring a trap. Besides that, we already have destroyed their infrastructure - and we haven't fixed it since.

As Sheuer points out the only reason America has to consider implementing overwhelming brutality and excise the Geneva Conventions fron the Army Field Manual - is because we've been dealing from a position of Bad Faith during this entire conflict. All of our positions have been wrong. Saddam wasn't a threat to us, he didn't have WMD's, he didn't have Nukes, he wasn't tied to Al Qaeda - and he'd destroyed his WMD's in 1991 (as revealed by the Dulfer Report).

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

This information was provided to the Bush Administration long before the invasion by Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri, and confirmed by Saddam's own pre-war declaration.

exact same facilities for the exact same purpose - what have we managed to accomplish other than changing the guards on the doorway to hell?[/p>

Our Administration Lied about the reasons for the War from Day One.

They used Bad Faith. The only true use of military force is to bring someone to the negotiating table who is otherwise unwilling, but if they simply can't trust anything you say -- we should they bother showing up no matter how much force you use?

I've often begun to wonder, why did Saddam hide the fact that he had destroyed his WMD stockpile? Could it have been the strong likelyhood of a renewed Kurdish and Shi'ite rebellion if they knew his primary weapon against them was disabled? Was he just buying time to reconstitute his decimated Army? And if we had Let the Inspectors Finish Their Job and reveal that Saddam was disarmed, would his worst fears have come true and the violent insurgency that is now killing our soldiers would instead have gone and captured Saddam instead? (Especially since there some indications that Kurdish forces were the ones to capture Saddam, not U.S.)

The New York Times, Amnesty International, http://www.cartercenter.org/doc1354.htm&e=9797">President Carter, the ACLU and Air America Radio didn't create this situation. Bush and his neo-con supporters did.

Being willing to Use the Big Stick doesn't end the story, you have to know how to clean up the mess after you use it.

We have to change direction as both John Murtha, John Kerry and Russ Feingold have pointed out - but it's fairly unlikely that this will occuring during the Bush Administration and we can expect nothing more than further Abu Ghraib's and Haditha's for the forseeable future.

Crossposted on Truth 2 Power

Vyan

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. They know defeat is inevitable, so instead of admitting it

they start in with the old shit about how they were restrained by the rules of engagement and how the only way to "win" is by genocide. As if they haven't been doing all that shit the whole time with no results.
American is rapidly running out of money and time to fight this thing. Iraq is quietly slipping through their fingers, there is nothing they can do.

[jwirr]

2. Yes, and at the same time period, that he is damning the Geneva

Conventions, two you soldier's are tortured and beheaded. This is what the Conventions were put into place to prevent. Those who have destroyed the Conventions are guilty of murder just as much as those who wield the axe.

[smoogatz]

3. It's the myth of Vietnam all over again.

Which was the myth of Korea all over again. During the Korean war, MacArthur (darling of the rightwing) advocated using nuclear weapons and invading China. Truman refused (wisely--MacArthur's plan was insane), and was immediately accused by the right of being a communist sympathizer and a coward. Same shit, different war in Vietnam--the Vietnamese government contends that we killed 5 million Vietnamese in that war (4 million civilians), roughly 15% of the population. We napalmed them, bombed them, burned their villages, killed their women and children indiscriminately, defoliated and poisoned half the country with shit so toxic that it killed the Americans who handled it--and still the right wing demanded that we "take the gloves off." What gloves? How stupid are these motherfuckers? How many more Vietnamese should we have killed in order to protect the Vietnamese from the scourge of communism? And now we've got Iraq, a desert on top of 220 billion barrels of oil to which we've brought God's gift of liberty. And by God, we're just gonna have to kill every one of those dumb Iraqi sonsabitches unless they get down on their knees and thank us for bringing them Halliburton and Democracy and freeing them from the bonds of oppression under which they suffered during Saddam's long reign of terror (which we supported, until we didn't). Kill 'em all, the wingnuts cry--and let God sort 'em out. Christ on a fucking soda cracker.

[Mr_Spock]

10. "Kill 'em all, the wingnuts cry--and let God sort 'em out"

RWers are all macho until they are the ones on the front line.

[The Wizard]

12. Don't you know

we went to Vietnam to spread democracy and that Ho Chi Minh was a ruthless dictator? Essentially, right wingers are usually impotent or ignorant or both, thus causing them to drag knuckles and dicks in the dirt. They're good at hiding behind the flag, but defending it with their back sides is another story. Watch the Marx Brothers' "Duck Soup" and note the absurdity of war hawks. As for douche bag Bill O'Really: one word, punk.
The only way he ever succeeds in a debate with anyone whose IQ is over 110 is to cut off the power when they're responding to his lies.
Whenever a wingnut asks me if I watch or listen to O'Really, Limpballs, or Sean Insanity I have a standard response: I don't waste my time on lying jerkoffs. Most have stopped talking to me, but that was my intent. I don't waste my time on lying jerkoffs. In fact, I wouldn't piss in their mouths if their throats were on fire.

[ewagner]

4. Excellent post

What has aggrivated me from the beginning is that the Bush Administration took this hard, right turn in foreign policy and never truthfully explained their position to the American people. Instead, the reason was buried in lies and fear-mongering.

Much, much later in the game the fear mongering was replaced with "spreading democracy". I don't seem to remember George W. Bush debating John Kerry about whether we should or should not "spread democracy".

The American people need to be asked if they want to pursue a policy of PAX AMERICANA and if they are willing to sacrifice blood and treasure to build the New American Century that these lunatics envision.

Where is that debate?

[Amonester]

5. Worse

How many innocents did Saddam kill in total?

How many innocents did Dumbya kill in total? (And still do?)

At what number does the brutal AWOL tyrant becomes worse?

[Time for change]

6. You said it all

O'Lieley and his ilk give themselves away when they rant about the need for total war, to anyone who is listening. Anyone who believes that these people and BushCo are interested in bringing democracy to Iraq need a brain transplant.

[geardaddy]

7. Sherman

Remember, Sherman was doing the bidding of a Republican adminstration during the Civil War.

[eviltwin2525]

9. Southern dissident

As a Southern born-and-bred white male (expatriate Texan, now new Seattle), I want to strongly disavow the obsession my homey's have for always bringing every negative thing somehow back to Sherman. Bullshit. Yes, Sherman seized or destroyed anything of even remote military value and took or burned all crops and much other property. He did NOT institute a policy of physical abuse, rape, and other terror methods. (Southern dead-enders shadowing his march DID, but he can't be blamed for that.) Hell, if Sherman had had his way, there would have been virtually NO punitive Reconstruction. We (the South) got what we deserved for the evil of slavery and the hubris of secession in defense of slavery, and we need to get over it. Evolve, damn it!

[iamahaingttta]

8. The only possible solution to Iraq...

... is to break it up into three parts. Nothing else will stop the bloodshed.

Saddam was able to hold together a fake nation with three major ethnic/religious groups through sheer terror. And these people are all "cousins." Bush opened Pandora's Box and nothing will close it again. (hmmm... maybe that was the idea? to get them to kill each other off?) Only a Kurdish, a Sunni and a Shiite independent nation will solve this problem.

Nothing else!

[Zambero]

11. Why copy Saddam's methods when we have the real thing?

Just let the bastard loose and have him bring together these warring disparate groups with the tried and true iron fist of brutal repression. For a photo op, have him shaking hands with Rumsfeld once again, for old time's sake and for a stable Iraq. As always, O'Lielly makes things WAY too complicated.

[johnlal]

13. Should be shoved in Tony Snow's face

Every time O'Reilly sticks his foot in his mouth, the WH Press Corps should ask Tony Snow something like:

"Your colleague at Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, suggested that we should use Saddam's tactics to control civilian Iraqis. Is this in line with the President's view?"

We should never let Tony Snow forget from whence he came.