Downing Street Memo
Happy Friday.
It has been more than two years since Bush declared that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended." It has been a year since the United States "handed over sovereignty to Iraq." (Hobbes is spinning.)
In the past year, 886 members of the U.S. military have lost their lives (1,774 since 3/21/03)and another 6,725 have been wounded (12,855 since 3/21/03). Estimates indicate that between 22,000 and 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. Every day there are approximately 70 insurgent attacks. No WMD have been found.
The current administration calls this "progress."
The not-so-secret Downing Street memo reveals the true motivations behind the current administration's "Iraqi policy." Matthew Rycroft, the British foreign policy aide who drafted the memo, summarized a discussion of Iraq between British and U.S. officials:
(emphasis added.) The meeting took place eight months before the invasion in the midst of UN efforts to achieve the resumption of weapons inspections. Nevertheless, the current administration already had determined to reject UN efforts and, in the absence of any compelling justification -- except for "fixed" policy -- proceed with the military effort:
The current administration has failed to offer a response to the revelations contained in the memo. The media remains afraid to pursue it (Newsweek still bleeds).
But, some are demanding action: http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/.
It has been more than two years since Bush declared that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended." It has been a year since the United States "handed over sovereignty to Iraq." (Hobbes is spinning.)
In the past year, 886 members of the U.S. military have lost their lives (1,774 since 3/21/03)and another 6,725 have been wounded (12,855 since 3/21/03). Estimates indicate that between 22,000 and 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. Every day there are approximately 70 insurgent attacks. No WMD have been found.
The current administration calls this "progress."
The not-so-secret Downing Street memo reveals the true motivations behind the current administration's "Iraqi policy." Matthew Rycroft, the British foreign policy aide who drafted the memo, summarized a discussion of Iraq between British and U.S. officials:
Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
(emphasis added.) The meeting took place eight months before the invasion in the midst of UN efforts to achieve the resumption of weapons inspections. Nevertheless, the current administration already had determined to reject UN efforts and, in the absence of any compelling justification -- except for "fixed" policy -- proceed with the military effort:
It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.
The current administration has failed to offer a response to the revelations contained in the memo. The media remains afraid to pursue it (Newsweek still bleeds).
But, some are demanding action: http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/.
posted by Happy Friday | 10:18 AM
2 Comments:
"Estimates indicate that between 22,000 and 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed."
Wow, what incredibly specious logic, even for this blog.
On Iraqi casualties: the "100,000 civilians" figure published by the Lancet has been widely discredited, chiefly because the actual study found that it was statistically significant (95% likely) that casualites were somewhere between 4,000 and 100,000. The Lancet only published the high end for sensationalist purposes and due to ideological bias. The 22,000 figure provided by Body Count.Org is likely more realistic, but still methodologically problematic, as they rely entirely on third-hand accounts gleaned from the media. Additionally, during OIF and the reconstruction phase, the primary resistance to the U.S. military has been irregular forces (i.e. Fedayeen Saddam, Al Qaeda-in-Mesopotamia) that because they do not wear uniforms, are indistinguishable from civilians when killed.
But even if we take 24,000 Iraqi civilian casualties (the UN's number) as the authoritative number, this BOLSTERS the moral case for the war rather than undermines it, as you contend.
Coalition forces have discovered more than 270 mass graves in Iraq, containing an estimated 400,000 bodies. (An exact number can never be known, because once Baghdad fell, Iraqis desperate to find their relatives' remains disturbed some of the graves before Western forensics teams could arrive.) Iraqi human rights officials claim that the number of Iraqis "disappeared" by the regime is actually 1.3 million. Even if we assume a median figure of 750,000, this is approximately 25,000 Iraqis killed by the regime per year. Add to this the 5,000 Iraqi children UNICEF (hardly a supporter of the Bush administration) estimates were dying each month due to sanctions, which we now know were enriching Saddam at the time because of UN corruption.
So, to recap, under Saddam you had an average of 73,300-100,000 Iraqis being killed per year by the regime - oh yeah, and don't forget systematic rape, torture and children’s prisons. At worst, as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom there have been 10,000 Iraqis killed “per year.” Therefore, the liberation of Iraq has saved between 60,000-90,000 Iraqis and ended Saddam’s massive human rights abuses. This is hardly dubious progress.
The ongoing deaths in Iraq are tragic, to be sure. But it is hypocritical to blame the Bush administration for this and claim to give a fig about human rights.
That's crap. The commenter is changing the "purpose" of the invasion to now claim (in the absence of any other justification) that it was to protect the Iraqi citizenry. What happened to the WMDs? By that logic is North Korea next? Then Iran? How about our good ally Saudi Arabia?
If that's the case, why did Reagan support Saddam all through the 80's when he was gasing Kurds (and allowing you to bolster your figures)? Remember those pictures of Rumsfield shaking hands with your newly labled tyrant?
It's a fun game to pretend that the war is about saving Iraqi lives. But, that was not the primary explanation offered Americans, the UN, or our allies.
The biggest gap in logic is that now the United States is killing, and being blamed for, Iraqi deaths--not Saddam. The Arab world will be far less forgiving of our misdeeds....
Post a Comment
<< Home