http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...s/?nav=globetop

Story posted below as well.

Discuss.

Cutting and pasting for those of us not registered to the Post might be nice.

Who's to Blame for The Killing

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, February 2, 2007; Page A15

This week the internecine warfare in Iraq, already bewildering -- Sunni vs. Shiite, Kurd vs. Arab, jihadist vs. infidel, with various Iranians, Syrians and assorted freelancers thrown into the maelstrom -- went bizarre. In one of the biggest battles of the war, Iraqi troops reinforced by Americans wiped out a heavily armed, well-entrenched millenarian Shiite sect preparing to take over Najaf, kill the moderate Shiite clergy (including Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani) and proclaim its leader the returned messiah.

The battle was a success -- 263 extremists killed, 502 captured. But the sight of the United States caught within a Shiite-Shiite fight within the larger Shiite-Sunni civil war can lead only to further discouragement of Americans, who are already deeply dismayed at the notion of being caught in the middle of endless civil strife.

There are, of course, many reasons for these schisms. Some, like the fundamental division between Sunni and Shiite, are ancient. Some of the wounds are more contemporary, most notably the social devastation and political ruin brought upon the country by 30 years of Saddamist totalitarianism and its particularly sadistic persecution of Shiites and Kurds.

America comes and liberates them from the tyrant who kept everyone living in fear, and the ancient animosities and more recent resentments begin to play themselves out to deadly effect. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died, the overwhelming majority of them killed by Sunni insurgents, Baathist dead-enders and their al-Qaeda allies who carry on the Saddamist pogroms.

Much of their killing -- the murder of innocent Shiites in their mosques and markets -- is bereft of politics. It is meant to satisfy instead an atavistic hatred of the Shiite heresy. The late al-Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was even chided by headquarters in Afghanistan for his relish in killing Shiites for the sport of it.

Iraqis were given their freedom, and yet many have chosen civil war. Among all these religious prejudices, ancient wounds, social resentments and tribal antagonisms, who gets the blame for the rivers of blood? You can always count on some to find the blame in America. "We did not give them a republic," insists Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria. "We gave them a civil war."

Of all the accounts of the current situation, this is by far the most stupid. And the most pernicious. Did Britain "give" India the Hindu-Muslim war of 1947-48 that killed a million souls and ethnically cleansed 12 million more? The Jewish-Arab wars in Palestine? The tribal wars of post-colonial Uganda?

We gave them a civil war? Why? Because we failed to prevent it? Do the police in America have on their hands the blood of the 16,000 murders they failed to prevent last year?

Thousands of brave American soldiers have died trying to counter, put down and prevent civil strife. They fight Sunni insurgents in Fallujah, Ramadi and Baghdad, trying to keep them from sending yet one more suicide bomber into a crowded Shiite market. They hunt Shiite death squads in Baghdad to keep them from rounding up random Sunnis and torturing them to death. Just this week, we lost two helicopter pilots who were supporting the troops on the ground fighting the "Soldiers of Heaven" outside Najaf to prevent the slaughter of innocents in a Shiite-Shiite war within a war.

Our entire strategy has been to fight one side and then the other to try to prevent sectarian violence -- a policy that has been one of the leading reasons Americans are ready to quit and walk away. They can understand one-front wars, but they can't understand two-, three- and four-front wars, with Americans fighting any and all in sequence and sometimes in combination.

And at the political level, we've been doing everything we can to bring reconciliation. We got the Sunnis to participate in elections and then in parliament. Who is pushing the Shiite-Kurdish coalition for a law that would distribute oil revenue to the Sunnis? Who is pushing for a more broadly based government to exclude Moqtada al-Sadr and his sectarian Mahdi Army?

We have made a lot of mistakes in Iraq. But when Arabs kill Arabs and Shiites kill Shiites and Sunnis kill all in a spasm of violence that is blind and furious and has roots in hatreds born long before America was even a republic, to place the blame on the one player, the one country, the one military that has done more than any other to try to separate the combatants and bring conciliation is simply perverse.

It infantilizes Arabs. It demonizes Americans. It willfully overlooks the plainest of facts: Iraq is their country. We midwifed their freedom. They chose civil war.

this is utter tripe. after the first gulf war in 1991 it was abundantly clear that removing saddam from power would create a power vacuum and that civil war would be the most likely outcome. a huge majority of middle east scholars and policy experts agreed with this assessment - an assessment leveled by president h.w. bush. saddam prevented civil war by ruling that country with an iron fist. the opposing sects didn't rise up against him (or each other) because he was obviously ruthless and tyrannical, and he was willing to commit genocide on his own citizens. most of the same people were saying basically the same thing in 2002-2003. this administration simply chose not to listen. if you are now trying to pretend that people didn't predict this would happen or that this is somehow the fault of the iraqis, you're suffering from a severe case of amnesia or denial. or you're still trying to find ways to remove accountability for the current administration.

I disagree with the main point of the article.

But first:



This is a bit misleading. It's really hundreds of thousands, though no one knows the exact figure. Some are as low as 400,000 and some as high as 900,000.


Okay, on to the point of the article itself. Is America responsible for the civil war and the violence in Iraq? The answer is, of course, yes and no.

Why Yes? I believe that the current state of Iraq is a result of several major US mistakes including a fundamental misunderstanding, or total lack of understanding, of the various groups that make up Iraqi citizens as well as a failure in practice to actually establish order or to pass on responsibility in a timely and effective manor.

It is my opinion that the US government (or at least those responsible for the war itself) were way more concerned with planning the military aspect of the war (i.e. defeating the republican guard, yawn) than having any idea of what they were going to do after the war was over. I believe there was a total lack of understanding of the factions of Iraqi people, whether divided by religion, race, culture, or what not. I believe the US was totally unprepared for the extent to which these many parties or factions would not "get along" when not under the heavy thumb of a dictator.

I also believe that the US failed to provide the stability necessary to ensure the success of Iraq or they failed to realize that stability was mostly impossible with their continued presence and instead failed to pass on the responsibility by successfully training, supplying, and maintaining an Iraqi army and police force.


So, does all this mean that the United States is responsible for every death that takes place in Iraq as if we were killing them ourselves? Well, not in the sense that we are physically killing each citizen that dies in a suicide bomb. But did we create a climate where this sort of killing and civil war could take place? Well, we didn't create it, since much of it stems from conflicts of religion that are hundreds of years old or conflicts that arose under Saddam. But we certainly let it loose.



Well, no, but if an outside power were to come into our country and were to replace the police force with something else altogether that totally failed to prevent any crimes whatsoever, then yes, I would in a way blame that outside power for the crimes that the police force was not able to prevent. Of course, this metaphor (like most of the article) is overly simplistic, but it's not my metaphor. I'm only pointing out the holes in it.


And I dislike the idea of Iraqi's "rejecting" peace in favor of civil war. I think this is offensive (as well as flat out wrong) to the many Iraqi citizens who indeed do want peace, happiness, and stability for their country. It is not the Iraqis who reject peace but rather a relatively small (though extremely successful) group of insurgents who insist on fighting. So we should not, as the article hints, shift the blame from America to the Iraqis. Though the blame shouldn't be all on America in the first place.

The problem with this conflict, like many conflicts in modern times, is that there is no one person to blame. The answer is always: it's complicated. WW2 was so convenient. Who's to blame for all of this? Hitler. It was that simple, really (okay, well maybe not, you have to consider the crippling effects of the treaty of Versailles.... never mind).

But in this war, indeed there are clear "bad guys" (Osama, Al Qaeda, violent, murderous Iraqi insurgents). But the real causes of their conflicts remain misunderstood, under analyzed, and, for lack of a better word, complicated.

Some points in the article may be oversimplified, but more and more I believe that we would be in this situation today if we had found numerous weapons of mass destruction.

So, hypothetically, our invasion was justified. What would the voices in Congress being saying today, should the violence be as intense? Would it be more obvious that these people are killing each other because of racism and radical religious fervor?

It's a little like the argument about banning guns, etc. People say, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Others say, "Well, if there were no guns, people couldn't kill each other with guns, especially by accident."

Yeah but, guns don't pull their own triggers, and we're not pulling them for the violent terrorists and sectarian offenders.

I think "letting it loose" is giving us a bit too much credit. We didn't build an arena and say "have at it". They have more freedom now than under Saddam, and many have chosen to perpetrate violence.

Thanks for the cut and paste...

All I'm going to add is that this ia an increasingly grim situation in which no one will come out a victor. Many thousands more will die and the region may never see peace. Instability in the Middle East has increased decade by decade and seems to be reaching a feverish frenzy. When will Iran weigh in with their growing military might? Who will pop Israel with a mass destruction device, initiating wave upon wave of reprisal? Will Afghanistan be completely forgotten, along with the thousands of troops still there? Probably not, seeing as there are reports of Taliban action coming this spring to a border region near you. What's Syria doing that is keeping them unusually quiet?

It's a huge fckn mess and money may very well be to blame.

What? Can you explain that bit again? I don't quite understand your point. Are you saying that if there had been WMDs, then the current situation would be the same but more acceptable to the public? And if that is what you mean, would your aunt be your uncle if she had a penis?

I didn't phrase it really succinctly (I was putting out hypothesis, I'm not contending the invasion was justified as-is), but yes, I'm saying that the public would feel less worse about it, because there wouldn't be much argument on whether we should've gone in or not.

Seriously, look at the criticism that comes from the opposition, the mainstream media, and alternative media. "Illegal", "unjustified", etc etc...
I very much doubt that we'd be hearing all the flak we are now.

Okay, well then I still don't understand your point. Unless it was just to argue in favour of a hypothetical situation. No thanks.

I'm bored at work, but I'm not that bored...

Even if we had found WMDs, mk's arguments above would be no less sound than they are today.

Except, the premise is wrong. We are not pulling the triggers for those Iraqis.

Do you really think we need to be physically pulling the triggers to be responsible for the deaths?

Ever heard of cause and effect?

Yes.

and,

Yes. Pulling a trigger of a gun = a bullet comes out of it.

Not, deposing a dictator = AK47's randomly start killing people.

perhaps a metaphor will help.

if you take your car to a mechanic, and he tells you that your car is unsafe to drive yet you refuse to listen and drive it anyway and cause a major accident on the highway, who or what is responsible? the car? or you?

Where's that "arguing on the internet is pointless" picture?
If you a) have heard of cause and effect and b) don't think it applies here, then I think I'm done.

Clearly the mechanic for not issuing and enforcing a Resolution to stop you from driving...

I'm reminded of a song by Avril Lavigne.

The answer is You, but I would equate driving the car to pulling a trigger. I don't think the metaphor relates well.

I'll pose one to you:

The new governor in your state decrees that all roads and interstates are now speed limit-free. As a result, traffic fatalities climb. Who caused those deaths?

Sk8ter Boi?


(and yes, I do know the cute spelling of the song. You got a problem?)

George Bush.

I'm a fan as well.





Of course.

Responsbility starts with the governor. To anyone who says otherwise: What's the point of having people in charge, then?


DonkSlayer, I think you're really missing the point here. GW Bush- and his neocon advisors- either:

a) KNEW that an invasion of Iraq would lead to a bloody civil war

or

B) DID NOT KNOW that an invasion of Iraq would lead to a bloody civil war


If (B) is the case, then he and his war cabinet are guilty of being almost-impossibly inept and ignorant. As MK stated, this has been very an incredibly predictable outcome, even going back 15+ years. And they are responsible for their gross negligence, period.

If (a) is the case, and the Oval Office knew an invasion of Iraq would lead right to where we are today BUT JUST DIDN'T CARE, then- having had all that information and the ability to see the consequences of his actions (no matter if he was pulling the trigger or merely clicking the safety off)- then the Office of the President is CERTAINLY responsible.

Here's an analogy for you. I know a girl who is suicidal. She's really depressed. So I tease her and I'm cruel to her and I make her feel like shit. After a few weeks, she blows her brains out. "Well, I didn't pull the trigger. In fact, I never even TOLD her to pull the trigger. It's not my fault she killed her self; I didn't make her suicidal." Yeah, but you're still responsible. You KNEW your actions would lead to an increased risk of her killing herself, and you did it anyway. So you have to bear some portion of the responsibility. If you hadn't done what you did, she'd still be alive.

Wang

Do you find the answer to this question to be very cut and dried, or do you consider it to pose an interesting question? IF you can assume that more speed = more accidents, then IMO there is a sharing of responsibility between the individuals that were driving too fast, and the system that didn't tell them they were (which, until the day before, it always had).

And I don't see how you can think otherwise in Iraq either. Of course the administration doesn't assume ALL the responsibility; there are other people doing things that implicate them too. But to absolve them of ALL responsibility because 'they aren't pulling the triggers' is silly. As Wang said, they were/are either inept or neglectful. Innocent is not one of the choices.

This civil war in Iraq was going to happen eventually.

When Russia collapsed, Yugoslavia erupted. They were contained by the Communist boot for decades, waiting for the chance to erupt.

The situation in Iraq was waiting for Saddam's boot to be removed.

They were not going to grow out of their generation's old blood feuds at the death of Saddam. It was just a matter of when.

So we may have sped up the killing by naively thinking that when we give people freedom, they would embrace it and try to make the best of their world, instead of knowing that some people are evil and will do evil the first chance they get.

We can pretend that there were ways to prevent Rwanda, Dufar, Yugoslavia, Iraq, etc. etc. etc. But so far no one has found an answer that works, other than let the worst of them kill each other off, and try to salvage what's left. Kind of cold, but realistic.

Now the worst thing we could do is leave and watch the whole thing go up in smoke.

Although the dirty secret is that the EU will suffer from Iraq's implosion more than us. They are financially not capable of handling an oil shortage for years. So while they whine, we once again save their skinny butts from the bogey man.

But this region wasn't stable before we came in, and probably won't be stable during our life times.


Hope we invade Iran soon. They need a butt kicking

The Governor did not say it was reasonable or safe to drive as fast as you want. I think my metaphor is cut and dried, but don't think that Iraq necessariy is, although I do think it applies to Iraq, but I think the responsibility of murders and bombs and beheadings rest ULTIMATELY on those carrying out those acts. I will give you inept/neglectful, for sure. Do you think the article wasn't acknowledging inept/neglectful?

What is it like to blindly follow a party line? I really wonder about that? Not trying to point this at anyone in particular but some people in here seem to really believe some of the crap their party is dishing out. I am just wondering what type of mentality allows such brainwashing to occur...

5pm, it's the weekend!

DRINK!

He's not blindly following the party line. The Republican leadership think any country/any people can embrace democracy and accept it and make it work well.

You don't seem to get the difference between a war and a genocide. In Darfur or Rwanda what do you want to salvage after all the death? And somehow this is realistc to you. The US stepped in and stopped the slaughter in Kosovo, they should do the same in Darfur.



The US would not be able to invade this country, they are way more structured, populated and armed than Iraq unless what you're proposing is a nuclear attack.

YOu scare me sometimes Balloon man

Yes. He did. If something's illegal, it's society's way of condemning said action. REMOVING condemnation is tantamount to giving your (implicit) consent. If the governor made carrying and shooting a weapon on a crowded street legal, don't you think he'd bear a large portion of the responsibility when more people turned up dead?

True, he didn't make it legal to SHOOT SOMEBODY, but he really should understand that more guns being carried and fired around people would lead to more deaths.

What if he made it legal to shoot somebody, but not legal to kill somebody? Would he STILL not bear the responsibility?


I know these analogies are rather extreme, but I think they absolutely apply. There's a reason we give people power: because we trust them to make the decisions that affect us all, and agree to abide by them

Genocide: killing people because of thier religion, race or color.
War: Killing people because the two governments are incapable of getting along, or one government is confused as to what they can get away with.

No I got the difference.

Did we really stop the slaughter in Kosovo? We dropped bombs from 30,000 feet and the UN sat outside villages while they slaughtering continued, then the aggressors decided they had killed enough and needed to stop before they pissed off the whole world too much and we just wasted them. Rwanda is relatively peaceful now, with tourism on the rise. What exactly did we or anyone do there to stabalize it? Oh yea, we made a movie about it.



You do not understand what the US military is. Should we decide to take out Iran, we can do it in about 3 weeks, once we are in place. Politically we don't have the balls right now, but militarily? maybe 2 weeks.

We'll probably all just ***** and moan until Israeli planes do the dirty work again and then we'll all say how wrong that was while we thank Israel behind closed doors and veto any UN resolution against them. Just like in the 1970s. Same results, but the Arab's would respect us more if we seriously pounded them first, and made peace second.

But you shouldn't be afraid of me, I'm nobody and make no policy. If I was I wouldn't be free to make blanket emotional statements and would be forced to tone down my retoric. Unless I was king, then....

I think Balloon man is falling off the deep end a bit here....

I'm scared because you want to take over Iran. How would this be done exactly, kill everything in sight. I'm not convinced this would work, really I'm not. Ya you have a great army yada yada yada but look at what happened in Vietnam, 3 weeks heh?

what has Iran to merit total annihilation, research to devellop nuclear power. Nuclear power is the power source of the futur, they're gonna need it . Will they make bombs with it, I dunno but isn't that their right. The US and other countries have the nuclear bombs, why can't they. Granted they support and arm many terrorist groups but who do you think you are to go invade and stop them. The same thing would happen in Iran as in Iraq, the US will end up looking like fools.

I'm afraid that you are irrational and having a conversation with you will only result in my getting frustrated because you are not playing with a full deck.


But just in case I'll try to explain:

Iran gets nuke.

Iran nukes Israel ( they've said they want to do this)

Israel nukes them back ( they have lots of nukes and have a no more Masada policy (google))

Middle East oil becomes scarce because of the weird glowing colors

Entire world's economy collapses because oil is kind of important

Everyone suffers except the really really rich.


Versus

Iran can't have nukes because the big bad USA says so.

They complain to the UN that votes that America is really mean and wants to increase the US's financial commitment to 30% of the overall UN's budget.

Idiots like you cry about how unfair it is, while you also protest the USA having nukes.

The world continues buying Ipods and watching American Idol




You need to seriously sit back and think about what you just said. Do you really think that because you are nice to a terrorist and let them develope a bomb they are going to spare you in Canada? You guys are on the list, just way down near Botswana and Chad.

Illustrating absurdity by being absurd....poorly

C) Knew the possibility existed but were naive about their plan's ability to deal with that potential threat. They are absolutely responsible for creating an environment where the violence was able to spin out of control, yes.

]

If you believe the US is coaxing the warring sectarian factions along, without pulling the trigger themselves, then this analogy is a good one. Otherwise, I don't think it's the same thing. Mine works fine for argument's sake.





Be careful here. Using your first argument about lack of condemnation, you could very much argue that every Muslim who does not explicitly condemn terrorism is actually giving their consent. Insert internment camps and racial profiling run amok.

I just don't agree with your reasoning. Allowing more freedom of gun ownership and purchase, for example, is likely not a prudent step...people could certainly hold the governor responsible for creating an environment in which violence was more likely to occur , or failing at placing safeguards to ensure violence does not rise after the freedom was given.

BUT, the governor is NOT responsible for the deaths when people shoot each other. He did not shoot them, nor coax, assist, encourage, or otherwise help one person to shoot another, ever. He even spoke out against it; saying he believed that people should have the freedom to own guns with no restrictions, but that doesn't mean it's ok to use them irresponsibly.

See what I mean?

The problem with this metaphor is that a car does not have free will but Iraqis do.

Bush and certain Iraqis can both be wrong. There's no Law of the Conservation of Guilt.

If my deck cards isn't as full as your's it's because I don't use war as my wild card to trump everyone when I feel like it. I just don't see war a a solution to all the problems in the world, call me naive but I believe in peace. Oh and like it or not the world will run out of oil one day. Do you think this will result in WW3? possible but I think its highly unlikely.


And Donkslayer I havn't read all your metaphor analisis but I get the feeling you are always trying to find a reason why the situation isn't the fault of the US. You know you guys messed up going in their in the first place (I think I saw you post that once) so why do you keep trying to defend yourself. I don't even know what the US is really trying to do right now, by being there I think they are attracting more trouble. Terrorists are probably trying to make the country erupt into civil war by propagating more comflict between iraqi's. WE were lied to about the reason for war in the first place, but thats things of the past. What is the goal now? Like York said it's complicated because I really don't understand the situation.

This is the point I'm trying to make. David the Mocassin did it better than me.

That is your new name. "David the Mocassin." Do not fight your new name, sir.

If thats an excuse to be in Iraq why arent we in North Korea, China or Iran these countries pose a bigger threat than Iraq ever did. We cannot police a civil war, didn't we learn anything from Vietnam. I think we should use war as a last resort and when we got to war we have one purpose and thats to wipe out the enemy! Its amazing how much spin is put on this by politicians and conservative radio. Osama Bin Laden is different he is responsible for the biggest attack on this country since WWII, but Iraq, I'm more terrified of my grandmother. You can't have freedom unless the people are willing to get it themselves, look at how much freedom we have lost in this country because we have a mortgage and no time to stand up. The founders of our country would look at America today with troubled hearts.

First of all, I don't think China poses that much of a threat (militarily, at least. Economically they could be trouble, whatever that means).

A bit off topic, but am I the only one who isn't really all that scared of North Korea. I understand that they're a totalitarian state with a terrible economy and every one of their citizens is more or less brainwashed. But it's not like they're killing their own citizens. There's no genocide or anything taking place in the country. And it's not like Kim Jung Il as tried to invade a country for the past 50 years. I see them more or less as a joke, really. They just sit on the other side of the world doing their own crazy thing, but I don't think they're out to destroy the world. Maybe I just don't know enough about it, but I think they only wanted the bomb so they could seem powerful to themselves and pretend to be a real country. I think it's much more about ego than about them actually harming the rest of the world. I could be really off on this one, and please correct me if I'm missing something.

From Amnesty International's website dated 17 January 2004:

"For more than a decade, the people of North Korea - one of the most isolated nations on earth - have suffered from famine and acute food shortages. Hundreds of thousands of people have died and many millions more have suffered from chronic malnutrition. The actions of the North Korean government exacerbated the effects of the famine and the subsequent food crisis, denying the existence of the problem for many years, and imposing ever-tighter controls on the population to hide the true extent of the disaster. North Korea remains dependent on food aid to feed its people, yet government policy still prevents the swift and equitable distribution of this aid, while the population is denied the right to freedom of movement, which would enable people to go and search for food. "

Seems they are more interested in nuking the world than feeding their citizens. The regime is evil, and they are a threat to a peaceful world.