I agree. That comment was stupid. A lot of Iraq lies in ruins. They have little sovereignty. They have puppets in government and people who want to remove the puppets in an insurgency bringing war to the streets, suicide bombers who want to attack Americans and their allies. Infrastrucure destroyed by US bombs and Army. Thugs and theives roaming the streets. Not mentioning the CIA and private agencies. Much of the Iraqi heritage was stolen in the invasion. Their private possessions broken and shattered in home invasions by the occupying forces. And a million Iraqis of all ages and sexes dead, who would otherwise be alive.

December 21, 2007
Life 'better' under Saddam says vicar of Baghdad
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3084957.ece

Posted January 19, 2007.
Health Care in Iraq Was Better Under Saddam Hussein
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/46856/

Life in Iraq is worse now than under Saddam, Iraqi woman tells MCC students
http://www.haleakalatimes.com/story1986.aspx

Pericles,

>> “The UN ... would have eventually reached the conclusion that a concerted effort by a broader "coalition of the willing"….”

What ?? WTF?? You like my throw away line ?? Mate after the fantasy you opened your post with I cannot for the life of me see how it is you have the gall to be snide about anything I’ve said.

So this UN you speak of. Is it the one that, after dragging its feet for years, agreed to an understrength, African armies only (ie weak and easily subverted), intervention in Darfur which is worse than doing nothing at all. Is that the UN which allowed the holocaust in Rwanda? Or is that the UN which allowed declared safehavens in Bosnia to be overrun and the occupants “cleansed”. Is it the UN which has stood by and watched while brutal dictators in Burma and China have forcefully put down democracy protests?

Tell me Pericles where exactly has the UN had “ANY” success in deterring/disarming/overthrowing tyrants in the last 50 years?

>> “Who knows, faced with such unanimity Saddam may actually have backed down ...”

And as someone else pointed out the other day, what if the moon was made of green cheese. This is speculation with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight and you’re still flailing about. Saddam successfully resisted 12 years of concerted UN action and he had many examples of how to flout the UN and get away with it, to choose from.

>> “why, if you indeed believe the US is "winning", you think that their troops are needed ”

Because the stability and breathing space that the Iraqi Gov’t needs to repair Iraq’s infrastructure, bring their Army and Police forces up to speed, and cement their authority is guaranteed at the moment by coalition forces. When Iraqi forces can take over they absolutely should.

There is a difference, by the way, between winning (ie. in front but the war isn’t over) and won (Result decided). I know it doesn’t fit well with your rhethorical flourishes but it’s not a complex concept.

TBC

cont,

So, how you get the idea that I think that the job’s done is beyond me. It’s certainly not from a reading of my posts.

My major beef is with this idea that you can schedule victory and withdrawal on a calendar. Withdrawal will (*must) happen but it should be linked to observed progress on the ground, not election cycles or some politically convenient timetable.

I'm quite amused by your characterisations of Bush, Blair and Howard. Whenever I hear the term lap dog in reference to this issue I know that I’m dealing with someone petulant about their own impotence. Grow up. It’s easy to throw derogatory comments about with abandon. You’re not actually shedding any light on the issue, just heat.

Steel,

It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if health and education have slipped below standards in Tikrit or in some other of Saddam’s favoured localities. But to suggest that overall health, education and other services are worse now than in those areas where Saddam was “punishing” the residents, Ie the marsh Arabs, Kurds or the Shia is beyond comprehension.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq#Suppression_of_the_uprisings
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2742/is_2002_Feb/ai_n25042482/pg_2

The word “puppet” makes me laugh. It’s such a socialist staple insult and its clichéd in the extreme. Tell me why it is you believe that Maliki’s gov’t is not a true representative of Iraq’s people? After all, they voted for him.

Even if I were to agree that services are worse now than under Saddam, what are you suggesting? Bring Saddam back from the dead? Are you seriously suggesting that Iraqis as a whole (not just his favourites) would have been better off if Saddam has continued on, and then passed the baton on to Uday or Qusay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uday_Hussein#Allegations_of_crimes_or_misconduct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qusay_Hussein#Before_the_2003_invasion

Services tend to be a bit difficult to deliver when islamo-facists are blowing up gas and electricity plants and bombing schools and hospitals. No doubt, when that is finally under control, things will start to improve fairly rapidly. But if you want to blame someone for this, blame the insurgents. The Coalition is the only side trying to build/rebuild schools and services.

My only defence can be that it was an easy mistake to make Paul.L

>>So, how you get the idea that I think that the job’s done is beyond me. It’s certainly not from a reading of my posts.<<

This did make me wonder how I could possibly have reached this view.

Your opening line was:

>>Now that there is a strong chance that we might win/prevail in Iraq<<

This might have set me off on a false trail, because my first question to you was "where can I read about the 'strong chance that we might win/prevail in Iraq'?", followed by "I'd be very interested to understand better the definitions of "win" and "prevail" in this context."

You came back with a whole raft of quotes, all of which suggested that it was all over bar the shouting, e.g.

>>“Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has also led a crackdown on the Shia Mahdi Army in Basra and Baghdad in recent months, claimed yesterday that his Government had "defeated" terrorism.”<<

Now you say that you didn't intend this to be taken as meaning that the job is done. Which leaves me totally confused as to the point you are trying to make.

>>There is a difference, by the way, between winning (ie. in front but the war isn’t over) and won (Result decided). I know it doesn’t fit well with your rhethorical flourishes but it’s not a complex concept.<<

(I loved that "by the way". Nice touch.)

Since as you say "it’s not a complex concept", perhaps it might help if you made matters a little clearer.

1. Who is "winning" in Iraq.

2. What are they "winning"

3. How will we be able to tell when they have "won".

Once you have clarified your position on these points it might be possible to engage more meaningfully on the topic.