Top Ten Myths about Iraq 2006

[ProSense]

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Top Ten Myths about Iraq 2006

1. Myth number one is that the United States "can still win" in Iraq. Of course, the truth of this statement, frequently still made by William Kristol and other Neoconservatives, depends on what "winning" means. But if it means the establishment of a stable, pro-American, anti-Iranian government with an effective and even-handed army and police force in the near or even medium term, then the assertion is frankly ridiculous...

The United States cannot "win" in the sense defined above. It cannot. And the blindly arrogant assumption that it can win is calculated to get more tens of thousands of Iraqis killed and more thousands of American soldiers and Marines badly wounded or killed...

2. "US military sweeps of neighborhoods can drive the guerrillas out." The US put an extra 15,000 men into Baghdad this past summer, aiming to crush the guerrillas and stop the violence in the capital, and the number of attacks actually increased...

3. The United States is best off throwing all its support behind the Iraqi Shiites. This is the position adopted fairly consistently by Marc Reuel Gerecht. Gerecht is an informed and acute observer whose views I respect even when I disagree with them...

Gerecht, it seems to me, sets up a win/lose model in Iraq. The Shiites and Kurds win it all, and the Sunni Arabs get screwed over. Practically speaking, the Bush policy has been Gerechtian, which in my view has caused all the problems...

4. "Iraq is not in a civil war," as paleo-conservative Fox commentator Bill O'Reilly insists. There is a well-established social science definition of civil war put forward by Professor J. David Singer and his colleagues: "Sustained military combat, primarily internal, resulting in at least 1,000 battle-deaths per year, pitting central government forces against an insurgent force capable of effective resistance, determined by the latter's ability to inflict upon the government forces at least 5 percent of the fatalities that the insurgents sustain." (Errol A. Henderson and J. David Singer, "Civil War in the Post-Colonial World, 1946-92," Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No. 3, May 2000.)" See my article on this in Salon.com...

Snip...

6. "Most deaths in Iraq are from bombings." The Lancet study found that the majority of violent deaths are from being shot.

7. "Baghdad and environs are especially violent but the death rate is lower in the rest of the country."

8. "Iraq is the central front in the war on terror." From the beginning of history until 2003 there had never been a suicide bombing in Iraq. There was no al-Qaeda in Baath-ruled Iraq...

9. "The Sunni Arab guerrillas in places like Ramadi will follow the US home to the American mainland and commit terrorism if we leave Iraq." This assertion is just a variation on the invalid domino theory. People in Ramadi only have one beef with the United States. Its troops are going through their wives' underwear in the course of house searches every day....

10. "Setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is a bad idea." Bush and others in his administration have argued that setting such a timetable would give a significant military advantage to the guerrillas fighting US forces and opposed to the new government. That assertion makes sense only if there were a prospect that the US could militarily crush the Sunni Arabs. There is no such prospect. The guerrilla war is hotter now than at any time since the US invasion....

more...

[Karenina]

1. Kick!

:kick:

[Nederland]

2. Don't get #8

From the beginning of history until 2003 there had never been a suicide bombing in Iraq.

Why is this relevant? Yes, it's true but it doesn't seem relevant to me.

[ProSense]

3. Myth #8: "Iraq is the central front in the war on terror." n/t

[Nederland]

4. Yeah, that's the title

But the explanation includes the fact that there never had been a suicide bombing in Iraq prior to 2003. Why is this relevant? Does Juan Cole believe that the presence of suicide bombings is required for a place to be "the central front on terror"? That makes no sense. By that logic, we should have invaded Israel because that's were all the suicide bombings were taking place prior to 2003.

[ProSense]

5. Suicide bombing is a tactic used most often by terrorist groups. If

that was the only fact that Cole used to debunk the myth, the validity could be questioned. Since he offers more facts, including the reference to suicide bombings is simply to point out that this is a new phenomenon in Iraq since the invasion. At least that's the way I understood it.

Also, Cole is debunking what he considers the top myths, not advocating invading any country because suicide bombings occur there.

[Nederland]

6. Response

Yes, I agree that suicide bombing is a common terrorist tactic. However, there is a difference between being a victim of terrorism and being a sponser of terrorism. If the question is whether or not Iraq was a victim of terrorism prior to 2003, then yes, the observation that Iraq had no suicide bombings prior to 2003 is relevant. However, that is not the question. The question is whether or not Iraq was a sponser of terrorism prior to 2003. The answer to that question, obviously, is yes.

[ProSense]

7. The question is whether Iraq was/is the center of the war on terror.

The answer to that is no!

[Nederland]

8. Why?

Was there another place where Americans were being attacked more often? Prior to 2003, Iraq attacked American forces on a near daily basis...

[ProSense]

9. What does that have to do with terrorism? n/t

[Nederland]

10. It's the combination

The combination of Iraq being a state sponser of terrorism and engaging in near daily attacks on American forces that made it a good candidate for pre-emptive action. Yes, it's true that Iran and Syria (perhaps even Libya at the time) were probably greater sponsers of terrorism than Iraq was. However, those states were not good candidates due to the lack of existing UN resolutions against them, history of WMD use, etc. Simply put, Iraq was the best choice.

[ProSense]

12. Iraq was not a state sponsor of terrorism

Current http://www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm

Bush is the one who made that dubious claim. Military action in the no-fly zone isn't state sponsored terrorism.

[Nederland]

13. That is the current list

In 2003 Iraq was very much on the list.

Ironically, Iraq has actually been on and off the list several times. Iraq was first put on the list of states that sponser terrorism by Jimmy Carter, way back in 1979. It was taken off by Ronald Reagan in 1982 so he could help Saddam fight those nasty Iranians. It was put back on the list in 1990 by George H. W. Bush when it invaded Kuwait. Then George W. Bush took it off the list in 2004 after he removed Saddam from power single handedly. Funny how that list gets modified for purely political reasons, eh?

The reality is however that Iraq's support of terrorism is well documented. Here are pictures the Israeli government obtained depicting checks and letters that the Iraqi government would send families of Palestinian suicide bombers:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2002/9/Iraqi%20Support%20for%20and%20Encouragement%20of%20Palestinian

Likewise, the support that Iraq povided for the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO) are all well documented.

[ProSense]

15. That is not a U.S. government site. Here is the claim in 2001, and

it was dubious:

Iraq
Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2000. Although Baghdad focused on antidissident activity overseas, the regime continued to support various terrorist groups. The regime has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President Bush in 1993 in Kuwait.

Czech police continued to provide protection to the Prague office of the US Government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), which produces Radio Free Iraq programs and employs expatriate journalists. The police presence was augmented in 1999, following reports that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) might retaliate against RFE/RL for broadcasts critical of the Iraqi regime.

To intimidate or silence Iraqi opponents of the regime living overseas, the IIS reportedly opened several new stations in foreign capitals during 2000. Various opposition groups joined in warning Iraqi dissidents abroad against newly established "expatriates' associations," which, they asserted, are IIS front organizations. Opposition leaders in London contended that the IIS had dispatched women agents to infiltrate their ranks and was targeting dissidents for assassination. In Germany, an Iraqi opposition figure denounced the IIS for murdering his son, who had recently left Iraq to join him abroad. Dr. Ayad `Allawi, Secretary General of the Iraqi National Accord, an opposition group, stated that relatives of dissidents living abroad are often arrested and jailed to intimidate activists overseas.

In northern Iraq, Iraqi agents reportedly killed a locally well-known religious personality who declined to echo the regime line. The regional security director in As Sulaymaniyah stated that Iraqi operatives were responsible for the car-bomb explosion that injured a score of passersby. Officials of the Iraqi Communist Party asserted that an attack on a provincial party headquarters had been thwarted when party security officers shot and wounded a terrorist employed by the IIS.

Baghdad continued to denounce and delegitimize UN personnel working in Iraq, particularly UN de-mining teams, in the wake of the killing in 1999 of an expatriate UN de-mining worker in northern Iraq under circumstances suggesting regime involvement. An Iraqi who opened fire at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) office in Baghdad, killing two persons and wounding six, was permitted to hold a heavily publicized press conference at which he contended that his action had been motivated by the harshness of UN sanctions, which the regime regularly excoriates.

The Iraqi regime rebuffed a request from Riyadh for the extradition of two Saudis who had hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad, but did return promptly the passengers and the aircraft. Disregarding its obligations under international law, the regime granted political asylum to the hijackers and gave them ample opportunity to ventilate in the Iraqi Government-controlled and international media their criticisms of alleged abuses by the Saudi Arabian Government, echoing an Iraqi propaganda theme.

While the origins of the FAO attack and the hijacking were unclear, the Iraqi regime readily exploited these terrorist acts to further its policy objectives.

Several expatriate terrorist groups continued to maintain offices in Baghdad, including the Arab Liberation Front, the inactive 15 May Organization, the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO). PLF leader Abu `Abbas appeared on state-controlled television in the fall to praise Iraq's leadership in rallying Arab opposition to Israeli violence against Palestinians. The ANO threatened to attack Austrian interests unless several million dollars in a frozen ANO account in a Vienna bank were turned over to the group.

The Iraq-supported Iranian terrorist group, Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), regularly claimed responsibility for armed incursions into Iran that targeted police and military outposts, as well as for mortar and bomb attacks on security organization headquarters in various Iranian cities. MEK publicists reported that in March group members killed an Iranian colonel having intelligence responsibilities. An MEK claim to have wounded a general was denied by the Iranian Government. The Iraqi regime deployed MEK forces against its domestic opponents.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2000/2441.htm

[Nederland]

18. Correct

My link was not to a US government site, it was to an Israeli government site. Do you have a problem with Israel? I specifically avoided using a US government site because I suspected that you would reject such a site as being biased. Instead, you post a link to an article that basically confirms everything I said: Iraq has been a major sponser of terrorist activities for decades. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Any proof that the check and letter in the link I posted are fakes? Any evidence that the Clinton administration, which also viewed Iraq as a terrorist state, was incorrect in its assessment?

[ProSense]

19. Clinton's policy on Iraq was focused on WMD, not terror

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-108-2-99

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb1998/n02181998_9802181.html

The warnings are part of the 9/11 report and Richard Clarke's testimony.

Israel didn't invade Iraq, the U.S. did. Bush faked the link between Iraq and al Qaeda for that purpose.

[karynnj]

17. Because we are there

Not all violence and fighting is the war on terror. Most of the violence in Iraq is because of Sunni/Shia civil war. Additionally it is likely that some resent the US presence. Where is the army we are fighting? Afghanistan is still the center of the war on terror. OBL and other AlQaeda leaders are in Afghanistan or the lawless are in Pakistan. It was from there that they hatched the plot that was foiled in London.

Prior to 2003, we were flying planes over almost half of Iraq on a daily basis. None of these planes were shot down to my knowledge. Do you have a link to any source that said Americans were attacked prior to 2003 - not including the first Gulf war?

[renie408]

16. I think it would have probably been more accurate to say

that due to the nature of terrorism, there is no such thing as a 'central front'. It doesn't matter what method terrorists are using, whether it is suicide bombings or flying planes into buildings; they aren't standing in one spot conveniently labeled 'Terrorist Central'. I think saying any PLACE is the 'central front on terror' is a ridiculous, antiquated concept.

[ThirdChoice]

11. Quotes?

Where did these quotes come from?

[robertpaulsen]

14. Myth #2 needs to be shoved in the face of the 17% who want a "surge".

That means McCain and every other kneejerk reactionary who thinks that increasing the number of troops in Iraq will solve our problems.

[Redbear]

20. I think #8 is pretty simple.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with the USS Cole bombing. Iraq had nothing to do with the African embassy bombings.

If none of these things had happened, there would be no U.S. "war on terror."