Iraq death toll

[metadigital]

Well, I imagine that some will argue that the insurgents are killing innocents because of the US forces presence.

 

Though I don't know if I agree with that.  If news came out that the insurgents were doing some hardcore slaughter of the innocents, and committing mass genocide in response to the presence of the US troops, I doubt I'd attribute those deaths to the US forces.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can easily foresee the insurgents attacking (the same targets!) the Iraqi government for being secular, too.

 

Dedicated by permission to President Jalal Talabani: first elected president of the Republic of Iraq; sworn foe of fascism and theocracy; leader of a national revolution and people's army. In the hope that his long struggle will be successful, and will inspire emulation.

[Walsingham]

I think the fact that so many killing are sectarian should put the lie to that. Isn't that kind of like saying that the Rwandans perpetrated genocide because of UNAMIR?

[Sand]

Blaming the US forces on insurgent attacks is wrong and illi-informed. The insurgents chose to attack and kill innocent people, they are to be held accountable for their actions, not our soldiers.

[Walsingham]

Weeeell... I'd prefer we didn't but strictly speaking I could see the point if a bomb is launched at a US base and misses or something. But why should Coalition forces take the blame is they blow up a civilian water treatment facility, or mortar a Shiite pilgrimage?

 

Thing is that I accept that a lot of these tensions would not be expressed if we hadn't gone in. But they would still be there. The transition to democracy at least holds out the hope of a peaceful solution, rather than the universal terror under Saddam.

[Sand]

I agree.

 

Also the US and coalition forces need to be held accountable when they make mistakes such as that. Accountability is indeed a two way street.

Edited October 19, 2006 by Sand

[Colrom]

I don't like IBC. But that's not their job. I think the fact that we all mistrust them, but not very much, should be cause for confidence.

 

Can I respectfully shove this discussion down the road of debating our responsibility for deaths by insurgents and insurgent action. I don't think it's really sensible, but am curious what people think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As much as we may be eager to claim responsibility for all that has happened in Iraq, I think that we will have to share responsibility with many others and even God.

 

Here is one example regarding indirect death. If we bomb a hospital and destroy it, it makes sense to see ourselves as responsible for the suffering immediately thereafter of those who would have benefited from the services of that hospital. But a year later, it is harder to see how we alone can be responsible - unless we have taken other actions which have obstructed development of new medical capabilities.

 

I worry that it is fallacious or maybe otherwise wrong to try to assign a metric to responsibility for such things.

 

The fact that it was a war we chose to impose on others is certainly relevant to considerations. But how?

Edited October 19, 2006 by Colrom

[Sand]

We are definitely responsible for the invasion of Iraq and the actions we have taken since then but it is my understanding that we are indeed helping these people to have better lives, and while the insurgents reaction is because of our invasion, they are ultimately accountable for their reactions.

[taks]

I think that we will have to share responsibility with many others and even God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i suppose you have to believe for the latter to be true.

 

taks

[Colrom]

We are definitely responsible for the invasion of Iraq and the actions we have taken since then but it is my understanding that we are indeed helping these people to have better lives, and while the insurgents reaction is because of our invasion, they are ultimately accountable for their reactions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't know whether we are helping them or not in one case or another and certainly not overall - but I do agree that Iraqis who are engaged in violence are responsible for their own actions and maybe even more.

 

It seems that religious wars and local if not regional extermination campaigns have broken out. Those involved are fundamentally responsible. They can stop at any time.

 

Others may have some responsibility too.

 

I think that some of our people may have tried in the past to leverage the tensions between various sects for military or political advantage. Too bad. Some may even have staged events to move things along (supposition). Very too bad.

 

Most Americans and Brits are clearly appalled.

[Sand]

As Colin Powell once said, and I am paraphrasing, we have broken Iraq and now we need to fix this mess. A cut and run policy would do us and the Iraqis no good so for better or worse we need to remain on the task at hand till peace is secured.

[Dark Moth]

That I agree with, Hades.

[Colrom]

As Colin Powell once said, and I am paraphrasing, we have broken Iraq and now we need to fix this mess.  A cut and run policy would do us and the Iraqis no good so for better or worse we need to remain on the task at hand till peace is secured.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And I disagree - as you know.

[Dark Moth]

I think that we will have to share responsibility with many others and even God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The 'blame God' tactic. LOL. You and Hades shook hook up sometime.

 

But seriously, you think that we should just get up and leave Iraq? Why? I'm curious. How do you think that will help the situation over there.

[Colrom]

It is not a question of blaming God just giving him due credit.

 

I would like to see us work with the Iraqis - including Iraqis we don't much like (Sadr, for example) - and enlist the aid of countries like Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, as well as European and other countries for active control and direction, and contribute lots of money, with the aim of putting together regional policing and work projects for Iraq that do not involve ongoing US managment and control or US military presence or even the presence of military forces effectively controlled by the US.

 

I expect that the genocide that has begun will continue to some extent - especially in the region where the greatest disruption has occured - the Sunni triangle - but will abate somewhat in the Shia and Kurdish regions - and that it will be possible to extend the spheres of peaceful activity by increasingly providing jobs and economic benefits.

 

That's an outline of my plan.

 

The trick - for us - is to be able to let go.

 

I think that the more tightly we try to grasp control the more we alienate (such an appropriate word in this case) those we should just be trying to benefit and influence.

Edited October 20, 2006 by Colrom

[metadigital]

I think you'll find that is pretty much what Bush will be doing ...

[Walsingham]

I'm not fixed to this idea, but you mentioned cooperating with other regional powers. Might this not deepen divides if we invite other players into the 'game'? Or are they already there?

 

What I find frustrating is that (IMO) we could prevent many of these attacks if we, as the Western public made it clear we were not going to back out in the face of violence. The raison d'etre of those attacks would be removed. Or am I over-simplifying?

[metadigital]

Yeah, I think that's an oversimplification.

 

And the regional powers already have their eeeeeevil tentacles in Iraq.

 

That suggestion comes from (at least one member of) the Iraqi government: bring in the regional players Jordan, Saudi, Iran, Syria, Kuwait, and also the big international players, like Russia, France, China(?), etc.

 

The Iranians might actually start acting like the mature civilization they are, if they don't have to worry about an Iraq threat, for example. Maybe. "