Using postcolonial states as examples of democratic institutions being imposed by imperial force of arms is sort of a flawed argument from the beginning, considering the large numbers of problems that plague nearly all of them. Being organized by 18th and 19th century imperial powers simply hasn't turned out to be a sufficient condition for a state to be free and open, by Western standards.
I'd recommend the book Freedom and Culture, by John Dewey, only I haven't finished reading it yet, because I am one lazy student. (Timeline: It was assigned when I was in college; I am no longer in college.) But it has some insights on the subject of democratic governments, free societies, and the relationships between them.
Plus dig that entertainingly Cranky review at Amazon.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Nim: I think what TSN may have meant was that your tone, Jason, seems to suggest that the deaths of Iraqi civilians, if caused by the insurgents or US troopers with bad aim, is regrettable but not the fault of the US, whereas the majority of the world understands that every open-conflict casualty (Iraqi, american and european) since the start of the invasion is the responsibility of the US/UK since you came in uninvited and arbitrarily rewrote the rules of conduct.
Unless I put words in TSN's mouth... *shrugs*
That's not my intended tone- I'm just sick of the news (and everyone folowing that perspective) blaming all civilian deaths on US troops for either "recklessly endangering them" or "not protecting them enough". While the administration may have dozens of ulterior motives, the men and women actually serving over there believe in the ideal of helping Iraq become a democracy and rebuilding.
Those are the same people getting killed every day as both candidates lounge in their mansions.
I dont think any of us are getting a complete picture on the situation in Iraq, only what's "news" and ratings. Though we're still seeing far more from Iraq than that other country we invaded...what was it's name Af...Af...something.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
"I say that because the ground troops (whom I was clearly talking about) are doing all they can to avoid casualties but the airmen have no discresion from the mile away that they fire from..."
You may have been talking about only the ground forces, but so what? The line you quoted from my post was not that specific. When I speak of the likelihood of Iraqi civilians' being killed by US forces, you can't just say "well that's wrong, because the US forces aren't killing many civilians. (Oh, and I'm only talking about the ground troops.)".
If you're only talking about them, fine. Maybe they aren't killing a lot of civilians. But don't tell me that I have the wrong idea, just because you choose to interpret my terminology in a narrower way than is warranted.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote: Using postcolonial states as examples of democratic institutions being imposed by imperial force of arms is sort of a flawed argument from the beginning, considering the large numbers of problems that plague nearly all of them. Being organized by 18th and 19th century imperial powers simply hasn't turned out to be a sufficient condition for a state to be free and open, by Western standards.
Well, yes but that's because most were made independant before they were ready (for various reasons). Remember, a much slower transition to democracy was originally planned. Also most of the population of Iraq is much better educated than many of the colonial populations were when granted independance.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by TSN: To go back a few pages... If you're only talking about them, fine. Maybe they aren't killing a lot of civilians. But don't tell me that I have the wrong idea, just because you choose to interpret my terminology in a narrower way than is warranted.
Your "idea" was also that the adverage iraqi lives in fear of US forces (as much as of insurgents): that's not what I hear from people that have actually served/are serving over there. In fact, (considering that the US troops more are heavily armed that saddam's old troops), the anti-US demonstrations would indicate that not only are they not afraid of being killed by US forces, but that they're enjoying a freedom they lacked before we arrived....usually well within a stone's throw of US forces.
...now if they only would demonstrate for us.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Tao to survivial or extinction. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed."
"...attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence."
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 6th century B.C.E.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
"...that's not what I hear from people that have actually served/are serving over there."
And what about the people who live over there?
I'm not saying that I know for a fact that they are more afraid of being killed by US forces than by insuregents. I'm just saying that, statistically, they should be.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
TSN: I'm not sure that this answers the question you and Jason are debating, but I thought this might shed some light on where the casualties among the different demographics lie. The original story was posted here. Since the URLs change, here is the story in a block quote.
quote: ATTRITION: Iraqi Casualties When Fighting Americans
September 28, 2004: While the U.S. Department of Defense won�t release any data on enemy deaths in Iraq, the Iraqi Health Ministry has begun doing so. In the six month period from early April to early September, 3,487 Iraqis were killed because of combat action. Another 13,720 Iraqis were wounded. This data only covered fifteen of Iraq�s 18 provinces. The three Sunni Arab provinces that are most hostile to the government made collecting such data there impossible. During that same period, 432 American soldiers were killed, in all 18 provinces. The Iraqi deaths also include government security forces (police and troops.) The Iraqi casualties in the three Sunni Arab provinces were high, and probably increased the overall number of deaths by at least 20 percent, to about 3,800 adult males killed. Some of these were innocent civilians caught in the cross fire. Actually, a third of them were, according to the Health Ministry, were Iraqis killed by anti-government forces. The Health Ministry also believes that many deaths of anti-government fighters are not reported, to prevent further investigation of the family by the police. Coalition troops have noted anti-government fighters trying to take their dead with them, for the same reason.
What American troops do report, and this is often observed when journalists are about, are strenuous efforts to avoid civilian casualties. About two thirds of Iraqis are women and children. Since only nine percent of the combat dead are women and children, the American efforts appear to be working. The Israelis use the same approach when fighting Palestinians, and get the same results. Moreover, the Israelis have much more information available on the Palestinians they are fighting, and have found that over 80 percent of the adult males killed are actually hostile fighters.
American troops appear to have a 4:1 casualty ratio (for dead Iraqis for each dead American) with the anti-government forces. This varies quite a lot depending on the type of unit. American combat units appear to have a 10:1 ratio, while non-combat units, which get hit by roadside bombs, ambushes and mortar attacks, have a less than 2:1 ratio. The non-combat troops often fire back when they have a chance, but experience has shown that the best way to deal with an ambush is to increase speed and drive away from it. The overall experience with American troops shows why the anti-government forces and terrorists prefer to attack Iraqis. However, even this is becoming less effective, as better trained Iraqi combat troops appear in greater numbers. Some 90 percent of the of the coalition combat operations are conducted by American troops.
-------------------- "Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Tao to survivial or extinction. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed."
"...attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence."
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 6th century B.C.E.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
"...that's not what I hear from people that have actually served/are serving over there."
And what about the people who live over there?
I'm not saying that I know for a fact that they are more afraid of being killed by US forces than by insuregents. I'm just saying that, statistically, they should be.
Statistically we should live in mortal terror of cars and feel safe in planes too.
As to the POV of those living over there, I'm hoping to find a good blog from someone working and living in the region (preferably two- one native- one visiting) but no luck thus far.
quote:The overall experience with American troops shows why the anti-government forces and terrorists prefer to attack Iraqis. However, even this is becoming less effective, as better trained Iraqi combat troops appear in greater numbers.
That's going to be the real solution: more Iraqi combat troops (government loyal ones, anyway) will undermine any anti-american street-cred the insurgents may have.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Thanks for the links- the first seems far less biased than the former Post reporters though. I'll be reading those....
I'm watching the BBC just now- they're reporting that eight italian hostages have been released (reportedly the italian government paid a million dollars for this release). Baaaaaad precedent if true.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
There were a number of Iraqi hostages who were released at the same time as the two Italians.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Yes, it seems that only the two (of eight released hostages) worth reporting on last night were the two Roman women. Strangely, they were in Iraq to PROTEST the war!
Much good they did, really. Paid off for nicely for someone at least.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Pardon the lag for getting to this...we�re selling our house and have accompanying maintenance, buying another house and have tough negotiations, and our baby is due in November.
I have had to spend my intellectual capital countering real life arguments and problems.
At any rate, this:
quote:Here are the justifications properly stated again....
If I haven�t stated it in plain language before, I�ll do so now. I don�t believe the Mr. Bush and his Administration in their post-pre-emptive invasion justifications.
I look at the cited points as the line of spin they are.
And even if they were true and they are no good praise for the Mr. Bush and his Administration in that they chose not to be forthright and honest with the American people. They chose how to present their case to the American people and it wasn�t the democracy bringing, humanitarianism of the current line of justification.
There is a simple reason why Mr. Powell and the WMD argument and stole the show, and that�s because the Administration wanted Mr. Powell and the WMD argument to steal the show. The Administration chose to put the face of fear on their pre-emptive invasion plans.
They made national security and fear the issue and they put these thing front and center in the public reasoning for pre-emptive invasion.
I think it is dishonest for the Administration and its defenders to now say something like: 'oh, look at these other reasons to invade', when the Administration purposefully chose not to speak to the public about them before the invasion.
Instead, the Administration tried to, and did, scare the crap out of the population with half-truths, insinuations about Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, overplaying the danger Iraq and those nonexistent UAV�s posed to the national security of the United States.
What played from the White House, pre-pre-emptive invasion, was a permanent chorus of Saddam Hussein was a bad man who gassed his own people who had drones that could target the United Sates with WMD.
However, a greater indictment of the present line of spin is reality. What�s been created is a single use foreign policy...the Bic disposable razor of foreign policy...a get Saddam policy, with good sounding justifications that should, if they were justly and evenly enforced as foreign policy should be, be used to promote democracy, ease the suffering of people around the world, prevent other countries from obtaining WMD.
In that each cited justification there are real world examples that cry out to be taken care of through the auspices of the foreign policy laid out Mr. Bush.
And yet they are not.
North Korea gets a shrug... Who knows what�s happening with Iran... The Darfur situation gets called a genocide and then nothing gets done about it... Russia lays a smack-down on democracy and the United States does nothing... Afghanistan is so unstable that when Hamid Karzai leaves Kabul, it�s headline news...
So this line that we are in Iraq for peace, love, and democracy is, in my opinion pure spin. My guess, with no evidence to support it, is that once WMD weren�t found, Administration polling said the next best thing is going with the democracy bringing angle.
[ September 29, 2004, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
