These days so many of my thoughts involve Iraq that I've collected them in this separate page. If the items below seem too cerebral, the same feelings are presented in a very different style in this story about a dragon.

You can also visit my more general thoughts on social and political issues.

Response Not Appropriate

Millions of people lived under a harsh dictator for a generation. So we rescued them. Then we rewarded the victims' suffering by allowing their society to descend into chaos.

Huh?

Sectarian Strife Not Unique To Iraq

We hear that our actions unintentionally unleashed the sectarian strife that was just below the surface in Iraq. That way of thinking suggests that sectarian strife is pretty much unique to Iraq.

But there are plenty of examples elsewhere in the world that even though different groups of people have lived together for centuries, any mixed society can unravel all too easily. One of them is the former Yugoslavia (Bosnia, Serbia, etc.). What about our recent experiences there? A breakdown in public order -or political exploitation of nationalist feelings- can quickly escalate this issue into violence.

Only a few years ago the National and University Library of Bosnia-Herzegovina in Sarajevo, which was the main repository of Bosnia's recorded history and culture, was set ablaze and most of its contents destroyed. We should have learned the lesson then and not been surprised when similar strife overtook Iraq.

What's "Winning"?

Some say it's important to "win the war", that we should be careful not to be perceived as "running away".

But we went into Iraq to topple a dictator, to rescue the Iraqi people rather than fight with them. So how can we now be "at war"? And what do we mean when we say we want to "win the war"?

Count Civilian Casualties

So far, US and coalition authorities have rarely provided any public estimates of Afghan or Iraqi troop or civilian casualties or injuries. Yet it's clear it makes no sense to claim the goal of minimizing civilian casualties when we can't measure how well (or poorly) we meet that goal because we don't even count them.

Now Rummy is gone and fresh starts seem possible. Let's start counting and reporting all casualties ...not just US soldiers.

Our Foreign Policy Purpose

Over the years our president's description of his outlook has gradually moved from dismissive side comments to this clear straight ahead statement:

"The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country. From the Fourteen Points to the Four Freedoms, to the Speech at Westminster, America has put our power at the service of principle. We believe that liberty is the design of nature; we believe that liberty is the direction of history. We believe that human fulfillment and excellence come in the responsible exercise of liberty. And we believe that freedom -- the freedom we prize -- is not for us alone, it is the right and the capacity of all mankind."

To such a clear statement my simple response is: I don't agree. I certainly don't agree freedom is "the calling of our country", I'm not overly certain "liberty is the design of nature", and although freedom is pretty important to me it doesn't top my priority list. I don't cling to the idea that "freedom is not for us alone"; in fact it sounds to me like a strong temptation to bully other parts of the world.

I'd prefer our leaders to espouse something beyond a cartoon version of the "history" presented to me back in my elementary school days. Simply repeating the mantra "freedom" over and over reminds me of some of the things I did in fourth grade I'd rather forget.

"Stay the Course"/"Cut and Run" Not Only Options

On the one hand, doing even more of what hasn't worked so far doesn't make sense. Yet on the other hand, walking away from the mess we made would be unforgivably irresponsible. Fortunately we don't have to make this particular terrible choice, because these aren't the only options.

Stopping the use of military force doesn't mean just walking away. We could choose to stay intimately involved in non-military ways. We could commit substantial funds to repair infrastructure and to pay for other damages. Funds could be distributed for example through the new government we want to strengthen.

Here's a detailed example of such an option.

Freedom or Justice?

Ask the people who live in the Middle East whether freedom or justice is more important to them, and they'll answer justice every time. It seems presumptuous of us to tell them what they "really" want. Just maybe what they say is what they mean.

Our history suggests freedom is more important to us. But we're not everyone; how dare we generalize our own values to all the other peoples in the world? To someone else justice may be more important. There's no "right" or "wrong" choice, and nobody appointed us the world's arbiter of which is more important.

Are Iraqis Really Better Now?

"Would life under Saddam Hussein really be preferable?" is trotted out as the trump question so often it's become just an unthinking bromide. The only politically correct acceptable answer is "no". But really consider the question for just a moment.

Iraqis are much more likely to be kidnapped than they were in 2000. Iraqis have fewer hours of electricity than they had in 2000. Way back in October 2004 a study published by the Lancet said the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq was 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion. In the intervening years the situation has only worsened. Some estimates of Iraqi deaths since the USA took over are over half a million, about the same as all the deaths attributed to Saddam Hussein during his entire 24 years, including his war with Iran. And the current deaths are pretty much random, making everyone fearful, whereas the deaths due to Saddam Hussein were focused only on those who got on his bad side. So many professionals have fled the country one can't even find a dentist to treat a toothache any more. Many Iraqis are afraid to walk down the street now and instead just stay inside their houses, unlike they did in 2000.

So even though Saddam Hussein broadcast brutality and violence --particularly to those who chose to play politics-- maybe the average citizen was better off under Saddam Hussein.

Our Nation-Building Seems Two-Faced

Initially after Saddam Hussein was ousted Iraq was governed by the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority). Look carefully at this example of one of the "regulations" the CPA promulgated, taken from the old CPA website and not modified in any way. (You may be able to see the original if the old CPA website is still active.) Notice anything odd?

It's in English!

We were supposedly introducing the Iraqis to democracy, yet we didn't even originate regulations in their own language!

Notice anything else odd?

Its topic is Foreign Investment, hardly a big issue for a fledgling government. In fact, this "regulation" seems more relevant to economic globalization than to Iraq.

Initially Iraq Had Very Little To Do With Our Terrorist Threat...

Yes, Saddam Hussein was a vile dictator who mistreated his people. Yes, ridding the world of him was a noble gesture.

But his reach was confined mostly to Iraq, certainly to just the Middle East. Howard Dean's famous words "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer" may have been politically unwise, yet they were true. Can you tell how Saddam Hussein's capture and execution has improved your daily life?

...But Now We've Created A Whole New Generation Of Terrorists

After Newsweek Magazine ran a story titled "Iraq's Young Blood" about "A Young Generation Seared by War and Terror", a letter to that magazine read "...the phrase "at least 1 million Iraqi kids have seen their lives damaged by the war" stopped me from reading further as I stared at those words, feeling a deep sense of anger and repugnance. What would those children's lives be like if the United States hadn't so brazenly invaded their country? What fate would have been better for those children? Does anyone in the Bush administration feel any guilt as to the horror they have brought to these young lives? Is it any wonder that they hate us so much?".

What have we done?

Current or Previous Opponent?

Providing a clear window into his thoughts and motivations, our president said:

"In the 1920s, a failed Austrian painter published a book in which he explained his intention to build an Aryan super-state in Germany and take revenge on Europe and eradicate the Jews. The world ignored Hitler's words, and paid a terrible price. His Nazi regime killed millions in the gas chambers, and set the world aflame in war, before it was finally defeated at a terrible cost in lives. Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. The question is: Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say?"

Obviously it isn't just generals that have a propensity to fight the last war over again. It isn't 1940 any more, and our opponent isn't Hitler any more. We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto!

How about analyzing radical Islam and terrorism on its own terms rather than just waving it off as "more of the same"? How about an understanding of radical Islam and terrorism that's more current and more relevant than the 65-100 year old history that our president picked up when he was in school?

Military/Civilian

When asked about their model, the civilian planning arm of our military refer to the book A Bell for Adano by John Hersey. This is crazy!

This half century old book is about governing a peasant agricultural town where the style of life hasn't changed a whole lot in 700 years, where all the traditions are peaceful, and where everyone already has a job. The governor has an almost instinctive understanding of the place because his ancestors emigrated from a similar place. This book suggests almost nothing about how to govern a modern semi-urban society with high unemployment, with little memory of traditions that go back more than a generation, and that has been deeply affected by decades of violence. And it says almost nothing about governing people so very different that it's virtually certain neither the governor's ancestors nor the ancestors of anyone they know came from a similar place.

If the civilian planning arm of our military can't do a whole lot better than this, our country has no business "reconstructing" a country like Iraq.

As the debacle of federal disaster assistance to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina showed, the US military doesn't understand how cities work these days. Law and order was something of a problem in New Orleans, similar to Iraq. In both places the US military was surprised. They shouldn't have been, and it's unforgivable that they were.

Sometimes There's No Squirming Out Of A Mistake

A caller to the OnPoint radio talk show opined "Sometimes there's no right way to do the wrong thing ".

The same caller also said "Sometimes ya just have to take your medicine ".

Now What?

Colin Powell warned with the old pottery store saying: "You Break It, You Own It".

Now I'm haunted by this image on the cover of the Nov 13 2006 issue of The New Yorker magazine. Bush stands in the broken clutter of the proverbial china shop. As an irate owner points at the destruction, Bush mimes "Who? Me?"

Managing Iraq

It should have been obvious in advance that after one conquers a country one is obliged to run it.

What evidence is there our government is good at running a country? Well, a qualification for running a second country is doing a good job of running the first country. By undertaking to manage Iraq our government implies it is doing a good job of managing the U.S.A. Is it? Is your life and pocketbook better than it was back in 2000? Are you satisfied with our nation's response to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina?

It was a major event for us when the electricity was off in New York and other cities for just a couple days, or for weeks in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Iraqis have been dealing with unreliable electricity for years. No wonder they're impatient.

Location: N42 40.86' W070 50.35'  (North America> USA> Massachusetts> Boston> North Shore> Ipswich) Time: UTC-5 (USA Eastern Time Zone)  (UTC-4 summertime --"daylight savings time") Email comments to Chuck Kollars

All content on this Personal Website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, are available to anyone for re-use (reproduction, modification, derivation, distribution, etc.) for any non-commercial purpose under a Creative Commons License.