Apologies for the grammatical error in the third paragraph of my previous post.

The last sentence in that paragraph should have begun: "Had weapons been uncovered, the US would no doubt have used that as a pretext for immediate invasion, ..."

---

Another point Paul.L has attempted to dodge is that the overall death toll resulting from the invasion appears to much greater than what it would have been had Hussein simply been left in power (even if we assume that to be the only possible alternative to invasion). Whatever proportions of the toll to action by the US occupation forces, sectarian killings or by anti-US insurgents is largely beside the point.

I demonstrated with quotes from "The Shock Doctrine" that the conflict was brought about by the deliberate policy of the US occupation authorities of sacking Iraqi public servants as well as soldiers, privatising government services and giving all the work rebuilding the country to US corporations. Iraqis were excluded from performing the rebuilding work, and the work done by the US corporations was shoddy to put it kindly.

This is why the resistance to the occupation became so fierce and this is what helped ignite sectarian conflict. To repeat my quote from the "Shock Doctrine" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6974#108120

... in February 2004, eleven months after the invasion of Iraq,
an Oxford Research international poll found that a majority of
Iraqis wanted a secular government: only 21% said their favoured
political system was an 'Islamic state'. ... Six months later ...
another poll found that 70% wanted Islamic law as the basis for
the state (p350).

There was no excuse for the invasion in the first place, and there was certainly no excuse, once the invasion had occurred, for the US occupation authorities to have trampled upon the democratic rights of Iraqis, in order to allow Bechtel, Blackwater, Halliburton et al to plunder both Iraq's economy and the US Treasury.

Pt. 1:

An excellent piece Chris.

But please, watch the latent guilt.

If you choose to empathise with an enemy Chris, then why not go all the way. See how much they wish to annihilate us and then justify that in our cosy little Western fashion. Since it's inception the norm has been successful Jihadist conquest. Our concept of nationhood - forbidden by Islam - is a mere speck in history. Ignorance born of hubris still leads to fear and vulnerability. Check a global map of wars, genocide and humanitarian disaster/displacement today. Cross out conflicts not involving Islam. Guess what you see.

Democracy has always had a self destruct mechanism Chris. Freedom, equality and tolerance are singular achievements for our species. Our approach of education and law reform over war, is significant in that it blinds us to our true nature. This steady move away from religio-superstitious justification of morality is simply our only "way out".

The "War on Terror" is the resumption of Islams Jihad that began to decline after the siege of Vienna, Sept. 11th 1683. We are responding in defence, just as have all human beings who are not Muslim, since the prophet founded his Military, Economic, Social and Political power base that required one simple thing: Submission - the meaning of Islam. By believers - the meaning of Muslim, to conquer the world. No bargains, no straying no rest. Kill and conquer or burn for all eternity. The same "faith" we value here, drives our very doom.

Part. 2:

Camp David, Oslo, Golan Heights. All huge mistakes, leading to a surge in radical Islamic violence. We give democratic freedom, they elect oppressive extremists. Misunderstanding, pure and simple. Our citizens fear nuclear destruction unaware Allah forbids any damage to this world. Of all seven worlds in Islamic jurisprudence, only this one is where Allah "resides". We in the West simply have no idea, that I can assure you.

Today, the trigger for our self destruction is Political Correctness. So blinded are we by our own standards that we have handed power to our enemies for generations. We simply have nothing to die for, and will be overrun by Islam within a century. We will unlikely be allowed even an approximation of Dhimmitude. We will die, our children will die and nationhood will be Dar al Islam. Why? When we offer "peace", "freedom" and "justice" we sign our demise.

Democracy is a gift that few understand. That gift includes the choice to justify your existence. Yet almost all Westerners see only our "quality of life". If you wish to jump aboard this ship of fools Chris, then please don't seize the rudder and just rush full speed to the nearest light. You'll lose your way, and all on board. Navigate instead. Our most fundamental flaw, is misunderstanding of democracy as a side effect of religious dominance.

What we cannot escape, no matter how much we try to love each other, is that Islam forbids compromise. To be a devout Muslim is to strive for the demise of everything democratic. Somehow, with millions of Muslims amongst us we might wonder why the Koran says, "... kill them wherever you find them. Wait for them, lay siege to them. Kill them, wherever you find them".

Ex PLO Jihadist and now Christian author, Walid Shoebat is very open about immigration of Muslims with the aim of conquest. He says, referring to holy Koranic scripture and our insistence to see Islam as a Western 'religion': "What part of 'kill', doesn't the West understand?".

Thank-you.

Fitna:
http://dfaw.typepad.com/melbourne_atheists/2008/07/fitna.html

Killing Me, Killing You:

http://dfaw.typepad.com/melbourne_atheists/2008/08/killing-me-killing-you.html

Firesnake,

You haven't read my posts, have you?

And you definitely haven't read the chapters in "The Shock Doctrine" concerning Iraq.

To cross-post further from the post referred to above:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6974#108120
The plans of the US centred upon the Iraqis being too disoriented to resist the plans to privatise their economy for the benefit of the likes of Bechtel and Halliburton and open it wide for foreign investment, however on page 361 Klein writes:

Instead, a great many Iraqis immediately demanded a say in the
transformation of the country. And it was the Bush administration's
response to this unexpected turn of events that generated the most
blowback of all.

There were spontaneous elections in many parts of the country and "In many cases, US forces believing their President when he said the army had been sent to Iraq to spread democracy, played a facilitating role, helping to organise the election, even building ballot boxes."(p362)

However, Paul Bremer, realising that these would pose an obstacle to the plans of the US occupying authority, did not allow those elected a role in the administration of Iraq and cancelled its stated plans to convene a large constituent assembly.
(end of cross-post)

Thus it was the US occupation authority which chose to suppress democracy at a time when at most only 21% favoured an 'Islamic state'. By August 2004, two months before the assault on Falluja, the figure had risen to 70%.

I guess the only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that Bremer, Rumsfeld et al must be secretly in the service of the Jihadists of which Firesnake writes.

Very telling responses.

It's easy to recall the stances taken by particular posters in previous threads related to the Iraq war or the war on terror - alternatively, skimming a poster's history tells you a little about where they stand.

What's interesting, is the same divide occurred almost instantly in relation to the discussion of this article. Those who support the invasion have quickly leaped in to attack this piece, while those opposed support it.

Theoretically, shouldn't the issues be separate? Yeah, I know, it's politically charged, however in theory shouldn't we really be arguing about the limits we're willing to go to in warfare, and whether or not we think those limits have been transgressed by General Molan?

Again, in theory, those two issues can be divorced from whether or not we think the Iraq invasion was warranted.

As I see it, there's two issues:

1) The veracity of the Author's claims against Molan. So far, these haven't really been disputed with clear evidence.

2) Whether these tactics are condoned. Regardless of whether we support the invasion, the argument is really over whether the phosphorous weapons should be used, whether we condone the prevention of aid and support, and whether siege tactics can be used when a civilian population still exists.

The size of that civilian population can be debated. I'd be interested to know at what percentage the number of insurgents present in the city as opposed to 'approved' civilians makes it okay to deny aid assistance being provided.

I'd like to know more on where it's okay to stop using the ideals that make us different from the aforementioned insurgents - or is everything permitted if we're fighting against them?

Instead of reacting to it defensively because you support the war, or just using it as another piece of ammunition to support your opposition to the war, how about we discuss the morality of what's been presented here?

Forget that it's in Iraq. What if it was a Viet Cong stronghold, a Nazi encampment or a Japanese outpost post-Pearl-Harbor?

Would we still condone these tactics?

TurnRightTurnLeft,

Of course you are correct in pointing out that little of the discussion concerns the claims made by Chris Doran against General Jim Molan.

However, as some have used this article as a chance to defend the indefensible invasion of Iraq, others are entitled to argue the overwhelming case against the invasion of Iraq as I have done.

For my part, whilst I do agree that it is important to arrive at a resolution of the claims and counter-claims about the tactics used by the insurgents and the US forces in the fighting in Falluja, I have intentionally avoided discussing this because I don't have time to get my head around the claims and counter-claims about the tactics used by the insurgents and the US forces in the fighting in Falluja.

However, I don't believe that the technical discussions of what tactics are or are not justified or legal in these situations should be considered in isolation from the broader context of the war, or, indeed, if they even can.

That is why I made my initial contribution concerning Naomi Klein's very eye-opening observations of the Iraq war published only about 11 months ago now.