Dear America

The Organ Grinder is visiting our shores even as I write. Heaven only knows what is passing between him and our Prime Minister. Nothing too strident I hope.

If you like, we can send your incumbent home via Guantanamo, where the boys can shove broomsticks up his bottom in the new American style. In that way, he can truly enjoy the fruits of his labors before he is dealt with by the ordinary people of America.

Do let me know -

Best wishes America.

Your etc -

Chris what a superbly apt dark reference to that benighted ghoul now darkening our shores.
Plus Gary's article is so real compared to the gargage posted by Roskam earlier this week. And Leslie Cannold too.

Please also check out DESTROYING WORLD ORDER by Francis Boyle via your google.

What a despicable article. The painting of Mr Bush, Blair and Howard as the anti Christ and poor Mr Hicks as a victim. The author seems to take delight in the fact that under Mr Bush leadership thousands of Iraq's have been murdered by other Iraq's. The authors hate for Bush, Blair and Howard is obvious while his concern for Iraq's people is questioning. No solutions offered just cheap shots.

yes runner, thats *almost* what he's saying. Are you trying to say that he's wrong?

regardless of who is doing the actual killing of the iraqis, since bush's fake war began, and the direct resultant chaos, more people have been killed in the resultant aftermath than saddam killed in his decades being in power. its more than fair to lay this blame at the feet of the coalition of the willing.

and despite whatever judgement you have made about david hicks (you are going on media hearsay only, he has still not even been CHARGED with any offence/crime) are you actually going to pretend that being imprisoned essentially indefinitely and tortured (yes, his treatment is classified as torture!) doesnt make him a victim of this bogus 'war on terror'? which incidentally has only made the world a less secure place...

Runner, your comment speaks volumes.

Each time there is an analysis of the dastardly cock-up that has been the Iraq fiasco, the result indicates nothing but abject failure.

And yet, the response is always either:

A) You're just an America hater.
B) Forget about it, it's in the past. Let's focus on winning.
C) What about the poor Iraqis? We have to stay.
D) Whatever's happened, it's our responsibility to fix this.

It is very rarely - okay, let's swallow our pride, admit we screwed up, ask the UN for help (or heaven forbid, ask the nearby nations to assist).

C and D are quite similar. Those are the only two arguments with any validity, though the first step forward is admitting you made a mistake. And not just announcing that a troop surge is the be all and end all.

To asses whether a state has succeeded in achieving its military objectives we need to know what were its war aims.

Gary states of the Iraqi people that “they face the prospect, once the US is finally driven out, of yet another vicious dictatorship, probably Shia, after the civil war is finally fought to a conclusion.” Also, “If there is anything good to come out of this, it is that the so-called neo-conservatives and their mad ideological belief that democratic institutions can be imposed on any country by force and made to work are utterly discredited.”

In other words the war aims of the US were to impose a stable liberal democratic state in Iraq. That the people in Iraq will end up with “another vicious dictatorship” means that this war aim will not be achieved.

I submit that the pretext that we invaded Iraq in order to create a stable democracy, the neo-cons “mad ideological belief”, is but also “a pretext now proven false”. The US throughout has sort to undermine democracy in Iraq. As others have pointed out the US was compelled by the threat of a Shia insurgency to conduct elections and, Sy Hersh has detailed this, at once sought to undermine them both before, during and after they were conducted.

We know that in our case that here in Australia the democracy thesis is a “pretext now proven false” because under pressure in recent times Howard has all but conceded that we tagged along in Iraq because of the supposed “Alliance” with the United States.

For Washington itself the aim was to create a stable client state, in effect a neo-colonial dependency, right at the heart of the world’s energy resources in order to advance the neo-cons “mad ideological belief” of constructing a system of US global hegemony in perpetuity.

The US would then have won if such a client state, democracy or dictatorship, emerges and is enduring. The jury is still out on that one. It is amazing to reflect how widespread the democracy thesis, amongst supporters and critics alike, is held.

I am responding to the comments posted by the insulters, appeasers, conspiracy theorists, and forgeters of recent history. Remember 9/11 was pre Iraq invasion. The US did have valid grounds to invade. Hard to prove to skeptics,yes but valid. This war has to be won. It is being fought against insurgents, Terrorists, yes Terrorists, remember the beheaded hostages. They have to be hunted and killed,even if it does take years. The guys over there are fighting and dying for our freedom.

DerekorDirk, 9/11 has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq.

That was the Afghanistan invasion.

Let me make this clear: Saddam was an enemy of Al Qaeda. They hated him, for numerous reasons, but largely because his dictatorship, while vile and despicable, was NOT the kind of sharia regime they seek to impose.

So no, the war in Iraq is not justified at all by 9/11, and while I'm normally happy to analyse the various arguments put forth, on this score, you're just plain wrong.

What's more, the vacuum created by Saddam's absence has now meant that Iraq is fast becoming a haven for terrorists.

Why on earth do you think that WMD's were touted as the reasons to invade Iraq? Even Bush has only alluded to connections to spruik his war, he hasn't actually directly said Iraq is a result of 9/11.

It is this kind of simplistic interpretation that has led to such gross mistakes and thousands of people dying. It is this kind of simple interpretation that allows so many people to be led unquestioningly.

Afghanistan, now that's a different story. I still say Saudi Arabia would've been more logical, though destroying the Afghan drug circles is a promising endeavour.

TurnRightThenLeft

Your faith in the UN is astounding. I am not aware of them solving any conflicts to this point of time. They have a good record of sitting on their hands while millions are slaughtered.

I doubt whether anyone on the left or right with any compassion would enjoy watching anyone die due to bad policy from any Governments. Whether the US alliance should stay in Iraq I do not know but I do know that their are some on the left that would hate it even more if the US was successful in bringing some sort of sanity to Iraq

Can I ask a rhetorical question...this caliphate that Cheney speaks of, could it ever exist?

Bin-laden and the wannabees look like they've been in the desert and the caves too long, I can't see them building a "caliphate". He doesn't look the sort to want palaces and crave respect from other world leaders, which even after the caliphate is finished, he would still need. Leaders, after all, only look for 'face' in the estimation of other leaders.

We've heard "Arab Unity" before, from the Nasser/Ba'ath/Socialist road in the 60s, the liberation from the Ottomans, before that. There seems precious little that unifies that Arabs today- and history plays it out.

A mighty Arab nation could be built out of Saudi money, Egyptian population, Gulf-state stability and the western orientation (an oxymoron if you look at the words) that lingers in North Africa.

The main lynchpin of what remains of Arab unity is of course, the USA through its support for Israel.

They all hate Israel and with Israel gone, the Arabs would have even less to agree on.

And the cause celebre for Arabs today, whether they be Lebanese Imams, Saudi princes, Moroccan students and Yemeni thugs, is US in Iraq

Hi all... not impressed by the visit but did have a small laugh. NSW had to apparently change the law so the secret service protecting the almighty Vice President could carry concealed weapons. Only comment on that was... so that they could protect themselves against the VP whose shooting prowess is well known.

Chris

The author alludes to the pillaging of Baghdad in the aftermath of invasion. Robert Woodward's book 'State of Denial' gives a Washington perspective on just how unprepared the US was for occupation. And I recall the imagery too, particularly what a modest crowd of Iraqis were there to topple Saddam's statue, then you cut away to find the rope toppling the statue is being pulled by a couple of US Army humvees. Equally significant to me was the commandeering by Coalition forces of Saddam's palaces for their HQ's. Did it not occur to them what message this sent to ordinary Iraqis..to the victors the spoils.
Bush and Howard deserve to lose big time. Blair the (naive?) idealist loses more, the Iraqi civilians most.

In times past leaders were brought to book and had a miserable day in the dock. Vengeance, retribution or attempt at denying such failed efforts in the future?

Well if there is the will to do so, firstly having taken the trouble to inform ourselves of the facts and seeking not revenge but a better way of solving issues, including a common desire for power and oil (resources), we can bring them to dock.

Much of international law has been breached though as yet a count of ‘aggressive war’ cannot be brought for there is not universal agreement on the legal limits for such.

Prosecution may be difficult for questions of jurisdiction pertain. That is if a country has not ratified (or has withdrawn agreement) the law cannot be used. Elizabeth de la Varga a retired attorney of the US has written a fictional but legally accurate book,2006 on indicting Bush and other under American Law. In Australia and the UK indictment could be achieved using the Rome agreement, indeed in Australia much of the material is now an Australian law under the Criminal Code 1995 as amended division 268.

It is of course doubtful if this will occur not just for legal hedges and rapidly devised laws but because whilst it is fine to feel righteous concerning the Nuremberg trials when this and similar are used to charge ourselves patriotism, questions of accuracy of information etc come to the fore.

Better to go to Church and pray the Almighty will fix things without troubling us as seems to be the stand Rudd is taking. Seemingly it is okay to trash Iraq then as occupying force change the local laws to allow the wretched mess state reconstruction of the country, the obligation of the occupiers, giving commercial efforts of our enterprises choice before Iraq including Oil. Might be the reason for the lies that led to war not forgetting the very real and useful role of the media

For all you lefties railing against the machine. If Bill Clinton had done his work supporting and enforcing the U.N. Resolutions against Iraq instead of holding some dumb intern by the back of the head and bombing Iraq every time one of their planes entered the "no fly zone". Bush jr. wouldn't have had to go into Iraq. It's nice for you all to rewrite history to suit your personal bias and political bent but, how about reviewing events back to Carter and Bush sr. Then work your way forward to today. And one last notion for you to mull over. Saddam had effectively handed over most of the day to day running of Iraq to Qusay and Uday. Both of whom were going about killing any opposition that may threaten their power. If it's fair to blame the Americans for the sectarian and terrorist violence in the wake of Saddam's oust from power. It is equally fair to say that the Americans saved millions by eliminating Qusay and Uday. Those two had no conscience what so ever. Killing soccer players for loosing a game. There was a secure future for Iraqi's in the making.

How does it feel, runner, to be part of the 7% of Australia that still thinks Iraq was a good idea?

All I can say is history repeats itself > http://www.harpers.org/ProclamationBaghdad.html (1917).

aqvarivs, you might do well to remember that the biggest violation of UN sanctions in Iraq in the last few years was courtesy of our very own AWB Limited.

While this was happening, our government was steadfastly looking the other way. Perhaps you might care to offer an explanation of what was distracting Downer, Howard et al?

Gary Brown and all the other loopy lefties just don't get.It is all about the oil.The US backed Saddham so he would be part of the balance of power in the Middle East to keep them divided thus competition keeps oil prices down.Saddham went feral but they should have kept him in power

Now if the religious zealots get total control,they can hold the rest of the world to ransom by demanding we pay well above market prices.

Gary Brown should get down on his knees and that God for the US because without the cheap oil ,Public Servants like him would be living in abject poverty.The US is doing all the dirty work by being the world's policeman.

This is where people like Gary have failed the grasp the reality of our survival.We have superior democratic systems and economic prosperity and the loopy left want us to become Neanderthols so they can try their failed ideologies.People are not born equal and we all have to come to terms with our limitations.Kill incentive and we destroy prosperity.

The Socialist's nervana of socio-economic equality with our present genetic structure,is a pipe dream.Let's improve the system that works best.

So, the arguments for the Iraq war seem to be: (a) Hussein was a nasty man; (b) we need oil. What bearing this has on the undisputable fact that Bush & co lied through their teeth to get us into the war, or on the undisputable fact that Bush & co. have created an horrific mess of things, I fail to see.

Iraq is a failure.

Admission to this failure has to be the first step if any solution is ever to be found.

Bush and Co remind me of gambling addicts. Put $100 in a machine, lose it so put another $100 in try to recover loss. Lose again so throw in another hundred....until one day maybe you get the jackpot.

We need some laws in this country that holds a higher level of accountability from our leaders during war time.

Once again an excellent and succinct article but when is Gary going to start writing in the mainstream press again? And why has he cancelled both private numbers so I cannot bend his ear to do so? I know someone running a security firm in Iraq and two and a half year ago he was adamant that Iraq would soon be in a state of civil war. If he could get it right then so why could not our so called intelligence agencies. Two points Gary missed about Indyk is that he is a Jew, which gives on this occasion greater credibility to his analysis and two he lost his security clearance while in Israel, the only American Ambassador to do so.

while the middle east reality is depressing, the 'discussions' are even worse. this is an illustration of the fundamental law of political science: "you get the government you deserve".

the remaining supporters of the war are foaming rabid nongs, while the attackers are angry at bush/blair/howard/anyorall, as though national leaders are supposed to be saints and these three are somehow atypical.

not so, never true, and feeling betrayed merely makes you a different variety of nong. human history is largely the result of leaving national policy in the hands of one or a few arrogant old men. the ordinary people who suffer from these decisions, particularly in war, are pitiable, but- if you let john howard join this mad war without convincing the nation of it's necessity, either you are political cattle or equally guilty.

the fact is, australia is no democracy, and ozzies are not citizen quality people. they are content to be ruled by a group of people who would fail the entrance exam of the property developer's guild, on character deficiencies. ozzies are political cattle, and consequently, are ruled by political hyenas.

so get over the outrage at the current military adventure- you don't deserve any better.

Yes, Demos - all true but that doesn't prevent those of us who voted against Howard's regime, and protested in the streets prior to this unwinnable and immoral war, from saying "we told you so".

Admittedly that doesn't help the warmongers or their Iraqi victims very much, but it might just ensure that the Howards, Bushes and Blairs of the so-called democratic world are deservedly booted out at the next electoral opportunity.

Let's play the game of guilt by association, as we are so fond of doing with Hicks. Note the article in The Age first:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/shoebomb-ally-may-be-witness/2007/02/24/1171734073832.html

- in which Hicks' supposed association with Richard Reed may be used as evidence against him. Richard Reed, unlike Hicks, has succumbed to the sly-boy's techniques, and graduated with honours from the Confessions-R-Us Academy. Does anyone believe this stuff anymore?

Now let's turn the tables:

Prime Minister John Howard was staying at the Washington Ritz-Carlton both on the eve of, and during the events of 9-11. Also present were Shafiq bin Laden, Daddy Bush, Frank Carlucci, perhaps John Major, and other important players in the Carlyle Group. The Carlyle Group made a fortune out of the subsequent armanents picnic known as "the war on terror".

Question 1. Is it true that on the 10th September 2001, Mr Howard's plane travel was cancelled for the following day?

Question 2. To whom or what does Mr Howard owe his good fortune on that day?

Question 3. Did Mr Howard meet any members of the Carlyle Group during his stay at the Ritz-Carlton?

Question 4. What exactly is the relationship between Mr Howard and John Major? They are frequently seen sitting side-by-side at Lords during the test cricket. Do they only talk about cricket? Does John Major talk about his work at the Carlyle Group?

Question 5. Has Mr Howard been "sounded out" for membership of the Carlyle Group?

*

So you see, we can play "guilt by association" all day long. When it involves David Hicks, that's a headline in the papers. But when it involves the War-For-Profit gang, we call that "conspiracy theory".


*

The war in Iraq is lost because as soon as the Americans pull out the so called Iraqi forces will probably split up along tribal lines and rejoin their brothers in the civil war.

One option that comes to mind although I dont advocate it and want the troops bought home is this.
Maybe the Americans could do a deal with the Sunnis and hand government in Iraq back to them in return for cooperation between the two countries in the future. Thats how the country was before the invasion, under the control of the less religiously fanatic Sunnis who seemed to allow the Shiites to practice their form of religion freely. The Shiites however will want to make the Sunnis confrom to Shari law.

This would mean that the USA would effectively then be supporting one side in the civil war against the other. This is what the Ceasers might have done but of course they didnt have to contend with world opinion or the mothers who want their sons home (and who can blame them for that) A soldiers life meant little to the Ceasers their objective was to win and they did, but the American generals always have to consider world opinion first. This doesnt win wars.

If Western schools taught that tribes are dangerously territorial then maybe Bush and Co would have understood how this war would end stop teaching fairytales in our schools.

All the above left wing trodglodytes are in denial.The US has kept Muslim Middle Eastern Nations divided so world oil prices remain a low at competitive prices.Iraq was only a mistake for the US in that they assumed a feral Muslim country would embrace democracy.It has to be an evolutionary process.

I can only assume by the left's disapproval and hate of the United States is that they are quite happy for the rest of the world to pay high prices for their energy and so we will all live in total poverty.

Not one of the above so called ludites will debate myself on this reality.They are just a bunch of hypocrites in denial.Thank God for the US because the world would be on total chaos without them.

johnj,
AWB went private july 1991. Iraq war began mar 2003. The Cole inquiry nov. 2005 was based on allegations arriving from the U.N.s Paul Volcker's report, released in October 2005 of AWB paying kickbacks to Saddam in exchange for trouble-free transport of wheat purchased under the Oil for food program. Not, I repeat not, about any U.N. resolution.
Like many others on this site you take free advantage with the facts to support your personal political bent.

aqvarivs, you said the UN Oil for Food Program was "not, I repeat not, about any U.N. resolution."

I hate to be a party pooper, but the program was established under UN Security Council Resolution 986. The full text may be found here http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N95/109/88/PDF/N9510988.pdf?OpenElement The resolution says in part "that all States shall take any steps that may be necessary under their respective domestic legal systems to ... ensure that the proceeds of the sale are not diverted from the purposes laid down in this resolution". i.e. Australia as a member of the UN was expected to ensure that the program wasn't rorted. AWB delivered $300 million to Sadam. The fact that AWB was privatised has nothing to do with the fact that the Australian government failed to take "any steps that may be necessary" (or any steps at all) in overseeing the program.

I note that you believe I "take free advantage with (sic) the facts to support your personal political bent." Perhaps if you spent more effort checking YOUR facts and less in hurling illiterate insults I might agree with you.

If the Iraqi people were advanced enough to see beyond their religious spite and embrace democracy,George Bush and John Howard would be heroes,but alas their society have not evolved to a plane to match that of the West,therefore George Bush and John Howard are elevated to the status of terrorists.

Just typical left wing tunnel vision.Either we agree with their perfect tunnel ideology or suffer their wrath of hateful vengence.There are no grey areas of compromise or room for broader visions of how the real world operates.They are just really pathetic.Victim status is the ruse of cowards,who seek rewards without effort.

Arjay,
The Leftists who so hate the west can only survive in the niche liberal, western societies have created for them.
In the unlikely event they succeed in emasculating western society, they will sound their own death knell, since no other society -not radical Islam - nor communism ( in any of its permutations) will put up with them …

Chairman Mao’s sending the “intellectuals” to the countryside was a great cure for trendy leftism

Trashing the left, whatever "the left" is supposed to mean, is not an argument for anything. It is simply wallowing in stereotype and prejudice.

The onus of responsibility does indeed lie with Blair and Howard but in particular Bush and his heads of state, but it seems to me that in the wider scheme of things that the war in Iraq is much more complex than what punters generally focus on such as whats outlined in Brown's piece..

For one, the main precipitants of war seem to be largely driven by the American 'military industrial complex' as we were warned about by post president Eisenhower in his resignation speech. Under almost every single American presidents term in office, there has been 'military interventions' in one form or another which i have come to believe are largely driven by these massive arms industries whom exert massive power and influence and whom are generally the main profiteers of war..
Noone can say that the Iraq war was justified on the basis of 9/11, which is an idea recently denounced by Bush himself, but this argument has moved from 'what threat Iraq poses' to 'securing democracy in Iraq from "terrorists"', giving us all this renewed purpose in Iraq that was never there in the first place.. the hypocrisy is overwhelming, and its not to say that these arms industries are entirely to blame, its the move toward this militarily, imperialist processes driving us to war and for what? after world war two the UK faced either holding onto imperialistic monarchy and constraining democracy, but chose to facilitate Democratic principles.. America needs to face a similar decision

Please tell me again WHY Iraq is a failure. Who is killing the innocent Iraqis?

Johnj,
My last post was in response to your "aqvarivs, you might do well to remember that the biggest violation of UN sanctions in Iraq in the last few years was courtesy of our very own AWB Limited."
An extreme exudation of the true situation.
I posted exactly the issue with AWB. Not your plurality of sanctions.
As in "the biggest violation of UN sanctions in Iraq"
I confess it took me a second read to catch my misspell and I apologize.
It should have read, "Not, I repeat not, about any U.N. resolutions."

Bushbasher ,left is the mentality that does not have the courage to face the reality of total communal survival.ie what is good for us all.Life must be tempered with both survival drives as well as social cohesion,feelings of self worth and empathy fo others.We all have a bit of left and right in us, it is all a matter of degree and at what point we decide as a community,that standards of behaviour and discipline must be upheld for our society to survive.

There are people in Iraq are trying to achieve what we are losing.