Message To R
My friend Vera suggested a while ago to start a discussion group with some of her friends. We've been corresponding over the past few months on different issues, but Iraq has been the hot topic in most of our messages. This is my response to R's comments, though I can't post his message (or name) because he is active military in Iraq and it might get him in trouble. We disagree on many things, but it's always challenging to get their responses and hear what each has to say about it. If anyone cares to comment please go ahead and do so.
This is part of the message:
Hello again all,
This is a message I started writing a couple of weeks back while I was out of town and never got a chance to send it. I'm in no way trying to pick fights, but I guess R and I are on opposing sides of the spectrum in some of our opinions. It's healthy, exciting, and challenging to have an open debate on these issues. I understand that the perspective from the ground in Iraq has to be different. All the news we get here (regardless of how hard we try to get alternative news sources) will always be somewhat skewed. I question how "free" our press is, and how even the most objective reports invariably have implicit criticism towards one policy or another. Anyways, this is what I have to say:
Interesting comments. I agree with R. on the slowness and inefficiency of the UN to respond to humanitarian intervention. Darfur is a specially shameful case. On the other hand, the Iraq situation is significantly different, and here is why:
1. The vast majority of UN personnel are civilians, either diplomats, or activists concerned with a number of different issues ranging from Education to Poverty to Human Rights, among others. What little authority they have is given to them by the recognition and legitimacy of the governments of the world by means of passing resolutions and implementing them.
2. Being civilians (in spite of their political appointments) they have little place in a country still at war until-or-unless a multi-national UN force of blue helmets is sent to Iraq.
3. Even without such force, the UN was in Iraq, until its headquarters were bombed and 14 of its workers were killed, including Sergio Vieira de Mello, the UN high commissioner for human rights. A heavy toll that I believe demonstrated UN efforts to do something about the country. Perhaps it is not excusable, but it is understandable that they pulled out.
Anticipating the argument that by retreating they let the terrorists win, I think that the same standard to measure the commitment of the US military (trained and well equipped soldiers), cannot be applied to UN workers, as it is clear that they are more vulnerable to attacks. The lives of soldiers are no less valuable when it comes to loss of life during war, but the reality is that this is was soldiers do, they train to fight and defend, to kill or get killed in war. That standard cannot be applied to UN employees.
4. Blue Helmets will never be in Iraq for two reasons: First, it would mean legitimizing the invasion, which the UN clearly opposed from the beginning. Second, it would mean picking up the tab for expenses for the remaining of the reconstruction, a toll that the US rightly deserves to pay for having decided to go it alone against recommendations of the UN.
5. Lastly, I don't see why it is unacceptable to criticize US policies on how it handles Iraq. America singlehandedly decided to invade (I really don't buy the "coalition of the willing argument") and deserves to bear full responsibly for its actions. If it continues screwing up, it is still responsible for the mess it created, intended or unintended consequences alike. The credible threat argument makes perfect sense. Still, I don't think it applies to Iraq. Humanitarian intervention was not the primary mission when the country was invaded.
On the comments of where the reporters and the NGO's have been, it might be worth pointing out that according to Reporters Sans Frontiers, 86 Journalists have been killed in Iraq since the conflict began. According to Reuters 54 foreigners (the majority being NGO activists) were killed between 2004 and 2005, more than 200 have been abducted, and abductions of Iraqi nationals working for NGOs are numbered in the thousands.
So it is a bit harsh to ask "where the fuck are they", it looks like we know where some of them are, 140 are dead, and several hundreds of them have been abducted.
Finally, (I am adding the following paragraphs today, April 2nd) If the UN is not doing anything is simply because the US has rendered it irrelevant, not because of pique or cowardice. It's rather ironic to brush aside criticism when the entire world (represented in the General Assembly) was against the invasion and the US went in anyway (to find the WMD's Knowing that they didn't exist). Now, the American Government finds itself in a mess...they had bureaucrats doing the job that Military Personnel were more qualified to do and they realized it a little too late (Paul Brehmer had no clue of what he was doing); they planned for a swift victory but not for the aftermath, hence the entire country's infrastructure was wiped out, ransacked and looted in the weeks of chaos following the invasion (but not the oil wells, oh no, they, as well as the Oil ministry where heavily guarded from day one). It's too little, too late to turn to the UN for help, I really believe that this is a US-made mess, and it's up to our brilliant leaders to get us out of it ON THEIR OWN, the same way the got us into it because they knew better than the rest of the world.
I heard a talk of former US Ambassador Edward Peck the other day, he pointed out that it took this country seven years to write its constitution, and we asked the newly elected iraqi government to get theirs done during a weekend retreat. Iraq doesn't move at the speed of US opinion polls, and that is one major mistake that this administration is making. Right now it's all about PR, not about doing things right, but about doing them fast. Even if those fast fixes won't hold, all the government wants is to make people focus elsewhere, if only for a few months until mid-term elections are over. Then they'll have about another year before getting ready for the 2008 campaign.
Today's Financial Times reports that Condoleeza Rice went to Baghdad on Sunday to ask the Iraqis to form a coalition government FAST, yet, just a few days ago, several newspapers worldwide reported that Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador "told the head of the main Shiite political bloc at a meeting to pass on a "personal message from President Bush" to the interim prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari...that Mr. Bush "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept" Mr. al-Jaafari to be the next prime minister". (I'm quoting from the Dallas Morning News, though it was not the only paper that ran this story)
Of course the US denies these accusations... the double standard seems pretty evident to me.
Anyhow, I better stop or nobody is going to care to read all the stuff I'm saying. R, let me reiterate that I respect our troops, but I see as my obligation to question the way in which our government has handled the war. There is too much secrecy and intrigue, and one diplomatic mistake follows another in a never ending cycle. Our soldiers are there putting their lives on the line, betting that our bureaucrats have gotten it right. Even if they haven't, the Military has no choice but to follow the orders from above. I am only glad I am outside of that mess, if I were there yielding a rifle there would be little I could do other than to shoot or hold my fire when I'm told. From the outside, all I can do is interpret what I hear and see, and express my concerns, worries and opinions, which are as valid as yours or Vera's, or anyone else's for that matter. To both of you, (and to Dillon, of whom we haven't heard for a while), let's keep the writing flowing. Keep up the good spirits and take care of yourself man, believe me, when people out here complain about this war, the top thing in their minds is that you guys are out there fighting in our name. That's why we question our government, above all, those against all this think all of you should be home with your families, not following orders to fight a war over threats that did not exist.
Later,
JP
This is part of the message:
Hello again all,
This is a message I started writing a couple of weeks back while I was out of town and never got a chance to send it. I'm in no way trying to pick fights, but I guess R and I are on opposing sides of the spectrum in some of our opinions. It's healthy, exciting, and challenging to have an open debate on these issues. I understand that the perspective from the ground in Iraq has to be different. All the news we get here (regardless of how hard we try to get alternative news sources) will always be somewhat skewed. I question how "free" our press is, and how even the most objective reports invariably have implicit criticism towards one policy or another. Anyways, this is what I have to say:
Interesting comments. I agree with R. on the slowness and inefficiency of the UN to respond to humanitarian intervention. Darfur is a specially shameful case. On the other hand, the Iraq situation is significantly different, and here is why:
1. The vast majority of UN personnel are civilians, either diplomats, or activists concerned with a number of different issues ranging from Education to Poverty to Human Rights, among others. What little authority they have is given to them by the recognition and legitimacy of the governments of the world by means of passing resolutions and implementing them.
2. Being civilians (in spite of their political appointments) they have little place in a country still at war until-or-unless a multi-national UN force of blue helmets is sent to Iraq.
3. Even without such force, the UN was in Iraq, until its headquarters were bombed and 14 of its workers were killed, including Sergio Vieira de Mello, the UN high commissioner for human rights. A heavy toll that I believe demonstrated UN efforts to do something about the country. Perhaps it is not excusable, but it is understandable that they pulled out.
Anticipating the argument that by retreating they let the terrorists win, I think that the same standard to measure the commitment of the US military (trained and well equipped soldiers), cannot be applied to UN workers, as it is clear that they are more vulnerable to attacks. The lives of soldiers are no less valuable when it comes to loss of life during war, but the reality is that this is was soldiers do, they train to fight and defend, to kill or get killed in war. That standard cannot be applied to UN employees.
4. Blue Helmets will never be in Iraq for two reasons: First, it would mean legitimizing the invasion, which the UN clearly opposed from the beginning. Second, it would mean picking up the tab for expenses for the remaining of the reconstruction, a toll that the US rightly deserves to pay for having decided to go it alone against recommendations of the UN.
5. Lastly, I don't see why it is unacceptable to criticize US policies on how it handles Iraq. America singlehandedly decided to invade (I really don't buy the "coalition of the willing argument") and deserves to bear full responsibly for its actions. If it continues screwing up, it is still responsible for the mess it created, intended or unintended consequences alike. The credible threat argument makes perfect sense. Still, I don't think it applies to Iraq. Humanitarian intervention was not the primary mission when the country was invaded.
On the comments of where the reporters and the NGO's have been, it might be worth pointing out that according to Reporters Sans Frontiers, 86 Journalists have been killed in Iraq since the conflict began. According to Reuters 54 foreigners (the majority being NGO activists) were killed between 2004 and 2005, more than 200 have been abducted, and abductions of Iraqi nationals working for NGOs are numbered in the thousands.
So it is a bit harsh to ask "where the fuck are they", it looks like we know where some of them are, 140 are dead, and several hundreds of them have been abducted.
Finally, (I am adding the following paragraphs today, April 2nd) If the UN is not doing anything is simply because the US has rendered it irrelevant, not because of pique or cowardice. It's rather ironic to brush aside criticism when the entire world (represented in the General Assembly) was against the invasion and the US went in anyway (to find the WMD's Knowing that they didn't exist). Now, the American Government finds itself in a mess...they had bureaucrats doing the job that Military Personnel were more qualified to do and they realized it a little too late (Paul Brehmer had no clue of what he was doing); they planned for a swift victory but not for the aftermath, hence the entire country's infrastructure was wiped out, ransacked and looted in the weeks of chaos following the invasion (but not the oil wells, oh no, they, as well as the Oil ministry where heavily guarded from day one). It's too little, too late to turn to the UN for help, I really believe that this is a US-made mess, and it's up to our brilliant leaders to get us out of it ON THEIR OWN, the same way the got us into it because they knew better than the rest of the world.
I heard a talk of former US Ambassador Edward Peck the other day, he pointed out that it took this country seven years to write its constitution, and we asked the newly elected iraqi government to get theirs done during a weekend retreat. Iraq doesn't move at the speed of US opinion polls, and that is one major mistake that this administration is making. Right now it's all about PR, not about doing things right, but about doing them fast. Even if those fast fixes won't hold, all the government wants is to make people focus elsewhere, if only for a few months until mid-term elections are over. Then they'll have about another year before getting ready for the 2008 campaign.
Today's Financial Times reports that Condoleeza Rice went to Baghdad on Sunday to ask the Iraqis to form a coalition government FAST, yet, just a few days ago, several newspapers worldwide reported that Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador "told the head of the main Shiite political bloc at a meeting to pass on a "personal message from President Bush" to the interim prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari...that Mr. Bush "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept" Mr. al-Jaafari to be the next prime minister". (I'm quoting from the Dallas Morning News, though it was not the only paper that ran this story)
Of course the US denies these accusations... the double standard seems pretty evident to me.
Anyhow, I better stop or nobody is going to care to read all the stuff I'm saying. R, let me reiterate that I respect our troops, but I see as my obligation to question the way in which our government has handled the war. There is too much secrecy and intrigue, and one diplomatic mistake follows another in a never ending cycle. Our soldiers are there putting their lives on the line, betting that our bureaucrats have gotten it right. Even if they haven't, the Military has no choice but to follow the orders from above. I am only glad I am outside of that mess, if I were there yielding a rifle there would be little I could do other than to shoot or hold my fire when I'm told. From the outside, all I can do is interpret what I hear and see, and express my concerns, worries and opinions, which are as valid as yours or Vera's, or anyone else's for that matter. To both of you, (and to Dillon, of whom we haven't heard for a while), let's keep the writing flowing. Keep up the good spirits and take care of yourself man, believe me, when people out here complain about this war, the top thing in their minds is that you guys are out there fighting in our name. That's why we question our government, above all, those against all this think all of you should be home with your families, not following orders to fight a war over threats that did not exist.
Later,
JP
posted by Juan Pablo at 3:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home