Page 1 of 1

My Report on Iraq

Posted: 2003-03-10 08:31pm
by Master of Ossus
Okay, yesterday I got back from the Persian Gulf. This morning I went to Berkeley, CA (where someone threw an egg at a fellow editor, who was just standing on the sidewalk--but that's a different story) to talk to people from the most liberal city on the planet about the upcoming war [sic].

Basically, in the Persian Gulf, I found out that the Americans are ready. They're waiting, and they're kind of anxious to go. One of the soldiers I interviewed summed it up pretty well. He said that he felt that they needed to be going to Baghdad, and that he didn't care if he had to die for the Iraqis to live in freedom. He also said that he just wanted to get it over with, so that he would know if he and his buddies were going to make it out alive, or if they were meant to die. Other soldiers told me similar stories. They were nervous, but they also seemed to understand why they were there and what they were being asked to do. Only a few seemed to think that they were there for the wrong reasons, or that Iraq was in the right.

The Iraqis that I talked to were scared, but most of the civilians I spoke with (when the Iraqi soldiers weren't following me around) told me that they understood that some of them would have to die so that the rest could live in a better tomorrow. One woman told me that her son was in the Iraqi Army. She was afraid for him, adamant that Allah would choose the right path for her son, and understood that he was fighting for something he did not support. I asked her if she had any idea about where her son was, or how he was coping with that contradiction, and she told me that she didn't know, but that she hoped he was going to be brave about whatever happened. When the Iraqi soldiers were following me, it was amazing how much everyone loved Saddam, hated America, and hated Britain. If anything, though, the people seemed to be anxious to get it over with. They wanted to know what new government they were going to get, and what it would pursue. Everyone there seemed convinced that in the next three months Iraq would have a new government, and they seemed to be more afraid of what it was going to be doing than of American weapons.

In Berkeley, I got the same impression. The people there seemed to be scared. I think that the events of the past two years have thoroughly shaken the radical community. They were startled when the 9/11 events occurred. They were completely surprised by the war in Afghanistan--how it was almost bloodless (in terms of civilians), but most of all how the Afghani people had cheered in Kabul when the Taliban fled the city. I think that a lot of them realized that their impressions of war in general did not match up with what they saw in Afghanistan, because they had always been under the impression that war is unbelievably and without exception morally unjustifiable and wrong from all angles.

In any case, I was kind of surprised at how few people there were willing to come out and publically bash on the war. Most of them didn't like it, and were not happy with what they expect, but the resistance was not nearly so strong as the resistance was to the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf conflict, or to some of the other wars that the United States has pursued since then. There's a big anti-war rally coming up on the 17th, so I intend to cover that one myself, and I expect that I'll find some more vocal critics of the Bush campaign, there, but I was surprised at how timid Berkeley was in its opposition to a potential war with Iraq. It wasn't like past wars, at all.

Posted: 2003-03-10 09:15pm
by theski
Tough not to be a cheerleader. Nice Job!! :D

Posted: 2003-03-10 09:20pm
by neoolong
Berkeley now is much different from the past. There are less vocal types, most are now here to just get an education. Many that are of that type, aren't even students.

Posted: 2003-03-10 09:23pm
by Enforcer Talen
low casualties in afghanistan? the one number I have, baised peace people they are, was 300k. . .

Posted: 2003-03-10 09:53pm
by Darth Wong
In many cases, the majority of casualties are indirect, caused by disease and malnutrition due to the destruction of infrastructure and the appearance of huge refugee movements. People often dismiss these casualties. That's one of the reasons you will often see wildly divergent casualty estimates.

Posted: 2003-03-10 10:34pm
by Master of Ossus
Darth Wong wrote:In many cases, the majority of casualties are indirect, caused by disease and malnutrition due to the destruction of infrastructure and the appearance of huge refugee movements. People often dismiss these casualties. That's one of the reasons you will often see wildly divergent casualty estimates.
Obviously. For some reason, people seem to ignore such problems.

In the case of Afghanistan, however, I think it seems clear that most of the casualties caused by such factors would have died anyway. Contrary to popular belief, refugees were already moving out of the country in large numbers before Sept. 11. While the American bombing runs no doubt increased the speed with which they evacuated, it also seems clear that the events of Sept. 11 and the aftermath brought an unprecedented level of aid to both the refugees, and to people who remained behind.

Posted: 2003-03-10 10:36pm
by Master of Ossus
Enforcer Talen wrote:low casualties in afghanistan? the one number I have, baised peace people they are, was 300k. . .
I have some difficulty accepting such figures. At the very least, the campaign the Americans performed in Afghanistan was stunning in both its brevity and its results.

Posted: 2003-03-10 10:36pm
by weemadando
Darth Wong wrote:In many cases, the majority of casualties are indirect, caused by disease and malnutrition due to the destruction of infrastructure and the appearance of huge refugee movements. People often dismiss these casualties. That's one of the reasons you will often see wildly divergent casualty estimates.
Can anyone confirm whether or not the green paper on strategic bombing/air attack on foreign powers is still the accepted doctrine?

You know, the one where the target order is:

1. SAMs and HQ.
2. Hospitals and Barracks.
3. Power, water and other utilities.

and so on? IIRC its the one where the point of using cluster bombs to cause massive non-fatal injuries after hospitals and medical supplies have been destroyed to cause demoralisation of the enemy population is endorsed...

Posted: 2003-03-10 10:38pm
by Darth Wong
Master of Ossus wrote:
Enforcer Talen wrote:low casualties in afghanistan? the one number I have, baised peace people they are, was 300k. . .
I have some difficulty accepting such figures. At the very least, the campaign the Americans performed in Afghanistan was stunning in both its brevity and its results.
That number sounds extremely high to me. After all, Afghanistan's infrastructure was already in a state where it couldn't get much worse, after all, and there was not much military action in the major cities. It's not like Iraq, where they have cities of millions and large industrialized infrastructures.

Posted: 2003-03-10 10:45pm
by Master of Ossus
Darth Wong wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:
Enforcer Talen wrote:low casualties in afghanistan? the one number I have, baised peace people they are, was 300k. . .
I have some difficulty accepting such figures. At the very least, the campaign the Americans performed in Afghanistan was stunning in both its brevity and its results.
That number sounds extremely high to me. After all, Afghanistan's infrastructure was already in a state where it couldn't get much worse, after all, and there was not much military action in the major cities. It's not like Iraq, where they have cities of millions and large industrialized infrastructures.
Exactly. It's possible that 300k people died in Afghanistan, or as refugees, during and immediately following the American bombing campaign, but to attribute ALL of those casualties to the Americans is to ignore the abuses of the Taliban in a deliberate effort to make it appear that the Americans were killing civilians. I won't suggest, either, that the American campaign didn't hit any civilians, or that NO ONE else died because of the American presence (I walked through an area that an American bomb had hit and killed three civilians, wounding a dozen others), however I also think that in retrospect the American planners and soldiers made a pretty good effort both in avoiding civilian casualties and in helping the refugees and people of the country.