If you took a snapshot of the last two months, Iraqis are unquestionably worse off than before the invasion.
GENEVA – Torture in Iraq may be worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein, with militias, terrorist groups and government forces disregarding rules on the humane treatment of prisoners, the U.N. anti-torture chief said Thursday.
Manfred Nowak, the U.N. special investigator on torture, made the remarks as he was presenting a report on detainee conditions at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay as well as to brief the U.N. Human Rights Council, the global body’s top rights watchdog, on torture worldwide.
Reports from Iraq indicate that torture “is totally out of hand,” he said. “The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein.”
[…] A report by the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq’s Human Rights office cited worrying evidence of torture, unlawful detentions, growth of sectarian militias and death squads, and a rise in “honor killings” of women.
[…] According to the U.N. report, the number of Iraqi civilians killed in July and August hit 6,599, a record-high that is far greater than initial estimates suggested, the U.N. report said Wednesday.
It attributed many of the deaths to rising sectarian tensions that have pushed Iraq toward civil war.
Let’s think for a minute about what it really means to be better or worse off. If you count the number of innocent Iraqi dead under Saddam at around 400,000 (a generous estimate based on various sources) and spread it over his thirty-year term the death toll comes to about 1,100 innocent dead per month. Let’s call that number the ‘Saddam line.’ Average monthly death tolls passed the Saddam Line a long time ago, often compounded by torture so the average quality-of-death (to coun a phrase) should be roughly the same. On a strictly numerical basis our current occupation actually manages to look worse than Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
One could counter that with the intangible and somewhat-less-tangible differences. Can anybody point to a credible claim that general quality-of-life issues, say electricity, sanitation, healthcare and general safety, are better off now than before? Women might miss the days when they could drive, go about uncovered and unaccompanied by a male family member. I could imagine an argument that things are going through a bad spell right now, just like I could imagine arguing that space aliens will have pity on us and relieve the 2nd Marine Regiment in Fallujah. Things can get better and they can get worse. Hypothetical arguments can go both ways. Right now things look pretty bad and no reason in the world exists to think that they cannot get worse.
Obviously any sane person would find this situation intolerable. If we do nothing then civil war seems like an inevitability at this point, but preparedness limits put a strict cap our ability to do any more than we are doing right now. Shuffling troops around (the ‘inkblot’ strategy’) sounds great except that is what we tried during August, one of the two bloodiest months on record. More success like that is something that we don’t need. It looks at this point like a descent into civil war will happen with or without us. I don’t know about anybody else, but given the choice I would pick without.
Mr Furious
Not to worry, those issues are being addressed in Saddam XT. It should be ready in early 2009.
chopper
“it’s not a bug, it’s a feature”
The Other Steve
But they have freedom now!
Or as the members of SPECTER like to call it:
Freedom to DIE, Mr. Bond!
RSA
I wish this kind of comparison were compelling to war supporters, but like TOS I think that their views are pretty much independent of empirical measures. Freedom outweighs any kind of suffering or even death. And conservatives can apply this idea to other problems with equal ease: the destitute are free to find jobs and become rich; the sick are free to seek inexpensive medical treatment; those who disagree with the President are free to change their minds and become right-thinking Republicans.
Keith
So now we’ve whittled down the reasons for war to: rape rooms & maybe Saddam somehow makes oil really expensive.
Andrew
But they have a flat tax!
srv
Look, it’s just some peoples lot in life to suffer. It’s just better that they suffer us rather than some two-bit dictator who only cared about himself. Imagine if we hadn’t invaded, where would we be? Those Fallujans would be all over Michigan Avenue by now.
RSA
For a second I misread “Fallujans” as “falafels”. Mmmm, Middle Eastern food. . .
Ozymandias
Hey, you got to break a few eggs to make an omelette.
An omelette of PAIN.
Andrew
I’ve always thought that pain is a flavor, but that such a thing involved a lot of hot sauce, not IEDs.
Rusty Shackleford
“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. The Iraqi people have been Freedomized. Now watch this drive.”
-President George W. Bush
chopper
are you saying an omelette of disease awaits my noontime meal?
Zifnab
I like that. The “Saddam Line”. They mythical point on the “how badily have we fucked up” line that should – in any rational society – indicate when we’ve done well more harm than good.
It’s like asking “How many jews do I have to kill before I’m technically worse than Hitler?” Which really does move the bar on acceptable behavior. I mean, one does have to question how bad Iran really is, since they haven’t killed nearly as many jews in a 4-year cycle as Hitler. That practically makes them Zionists, right?
“How many civil rights can we revoke before we’re no better than the Stalin-era USSR?” Still technically have the freedom to choose exactly how you fellate the President? Then things must be fine.
And Bush still has a 35-45% approval rating. Which, to me, proves that humanity on a whole, and Americans in particular, are a sick, sad, and unwholesome race of beings that probably all deserve to rot in hell. I am, finally, beginning to understand why the religious right is so caught up in the Rapture. When we all get what’s finally coming to us, I wouldn’t want to be around to see it either.
Punchy
Neil Boortz just saw your post, changed his underwear, then bought a condo in Sadr City.
Paul L.
Wow A UN report. Of course the UN says Iraq was better under Saddam. After all Saddam
bribedpaid them with Oil for Food.Maybe Tim will post a link to story about the UN promoting Gun Control.
Of course the people doing the torture are the same people that you guys want to give full Geneva Convention / US Constitutional protections to.
Pb
Well, the CIA already has those protections, for one…
Pb
Oh, and Paul L., about the UN’s small arms conference… you do know (despite the misinformation that some unhinged partisans may have spread) that it only has to do with black market arms sales, right? Or are you firmly in the pro-criminal arms dealer camp?
Mac Buckets
Far be it from me to stop a liberal for speaking for little brown people whom he will never meet, but:
Yes, in certain areas of Iraq, there is terrible, seemingly-uncontrolled terrorism, and that situation must be resolved. But in the last major-media poll of such things, 77% of Iraqi citizens responded that getting rid of Saddam was worth all the turmoil they had gone through. 51% said that even with the obvious hardships, they were better off than before the war (vs. 29% who said they were worse off). 71% said their lives were good or very good.
Which prompted two things:
First, the BBC said:
Second, the major media outlets stopped taking polls in Iraq. I mean, why go through all the expense of taking a poll if it’s only going to show that the media are sensationalizing the negatives of the war and Bush is more correct than they are?
So until I hear otherwise from them, I’ll believe the words of the Iraqi people who live through this every day, instead of some blogger who has never even met an Iraqi.
But that’s just me.
Different studies, from the UN, the World Health Organization, and private agencies have estimated that Saddam’s aggression which forced the UN sanctions designed to disarm him, and the Iraq Regime’s subsequent theft of oil-for-food money resulted in the deaths of 2000-6000 Iraqi children per month. So counting only the number of those found in mass graves is not telling the whole story of the horrors of living under Saddam’s rule, is it?
Tim F.
Link your polls, Mac. We’ve been through this before.
srv
Exactly. And we clearly remember, it is seared into all of our memories, the rights passion for little brown people back then.
les
Gee, Mac, thanks for reminding me we may be marginally better than Sadaam–and only at a cost of billions, and thousands of U.S. casualties. Republican hacks: lowering the bar for all.
Tsulagi
Nope, those reasons have been gone for a while too. After other reasons turned to bullshit, retardocons began crying over rape and torture rooms as the reason we had to free Iraqis from Saddam…well, we really just managed to change ownership. And in keeping with the Republican line of fostering an ownership society, there are now plenty in Iraq who own their own rape and torture rooms.
“Saddam somehow makes oil really expensive.” Yeah, I somewhat recall Paul Wolfowitz testifying to Congress about that threat. Believe confidently and knowingly he said not to worry, with our freeing Iraq oil would flow not only reducing then high prices but also paying for Iraqi reconstruction. Good to see how they execute that vision thing.
Mac Buckets
I’ve linked them a dozen times. If you doubt any of those numbers, just say so.
The Other Steve
But Paul L! President Bush favors Gun Control too
Mac Buckets
Who’s “we?” Are you an Iraqi sectarian terrorist? No, odds are you’re probably just a moron who has no clue what’s going on.
Zifnab
*boom* “No ma’am! Just a few minutes of your…” *rat tat tat tat* “It’s just a few simple ques… ” *weeeeeeee, blam!* *boom* *rumble rumble* *crash!* “Can I at least step inside to take cover?”
Mac Buckets
False. Bringing freedom and justice to Iraq and the Middle East was featured as a justification in just about every one of Bush’s pre-invasion speeches. It was not invented after the WMD search.
Mac Buckets
Hey, the media had been painting that “rat tat tat” picture of Iraq for three years, and they still managed to take that last poll and several before it!
Melodrama Buckets
Back before we invaded, Saddam was selling the money meant to buy delicious milk and using it to buy sweets and flowers for the Iraqi soldiers! It was horrible! HORRIBLE!
The children, they were starving in the streets. You’d walk down the street and you’d see six or seven children clearly suffering. Begging and pleading, “Please kind sir, can you spare a shilling?” It was the brave President Bush who declared “Enough is enough!” I am tired of Saddam Hussein profiting by selling the childrens milk money. I am going to invade Iraq and free them of this evil tyranny.”
So remember that. George Bush cares about children! That is why our soldiers were not greeted by sweets and flowers. The money that would have gone to buying that stuff, was instead spent on milk for the children! That’s how much George Bush cares!
You guys are just all too stupid to realize just how much George Bush cares.
It’s not his fault that the children are worse off. The evil foreign terrorists are now stealing the milk money and buying bombs, so they can kill Americans in their sleep!
We must halt the evil foreign terrorists from stealing milk money over there, so we don’t have to halt them over here.
We’re doing it all.. for the Children!
chopper
i’ve seen the poll mac talks of. it was performed early in january, right after the election in iraq (so optimism about the political future would probably have been at its peak), and before the recent increase in troubles and slips towards civil war.
there’s nothing in that poll about 51% of iraqis feeling that they are better off than before the invasion tho. mac must be thinking of something else.
as that poll is getting on in age, i’m seriously wondering what iraqis are feeling now about how well-off they are. polls earlier in the war were certainly not so optimistic about the future.
Melodrama Buckets
After other reasons turned to bullshit, retardocons began crying over rape and torture rooms as the reason we had to free Iraqis from Saddam
Melodrama Buckets
Oh damn! The evil foreign terrorists took over my blockquotes! Damn them! Damn them all to hell!
Andrew
Mac, why do you want our tax dollars to bring freedom and justice to Iraq, but not Lousiana?
Tsulagi
Yeah, weren’t those points wedged in somewhere between the smoking gun mushroom clouds images? The 500 metric tons of chemical weapons known to be in Iraq. Condi shrieking the aluminum tubes could only be used (she knew this was a lie) in nuclear weapon production?
Good to see they executed just as well in bringing that freedom and justice thing to Iraq as they did in finding those WMDs. They seem to have a lot of bugs in their “features” don’t they?
Pb
Actually, Mac, the International Republican Institute allegedly did some polling in Iraq in June. But as for the reputable pollsters out there, I don’t blame them for not polling lately, considering the further deterioration of the security situation in Iraq.
Tim F.
I’m not diving through the archives to find your last link. If you want people to bother judging one way or the other then sack up and cite the numbers.
I’m sure that you are aware of the Lancet study which pointed out a fair number of humanitarian deaths since the invasion as well. Lack of access to sanitation and medical care has not done any favors to the infant mortality rate. We can talk about either number but let’s stick to violent deaths since the line between torturer/shooter and tortured/shot is unmistakably clear.
chopper
gotta have the plan C in place for when plans A and B fall through. “yo, plan C was the reason all along!”
Tim F.
Interesting to note that the media could have stopped polling Iraq for one of two reasons. One, nefarious media conspiracy. Let’s call that the Mac model. Two, maybe the pollsters lost access to so much of Iraq that representative numbers became impossible, plus the growing danger of pollsters getting killed. In the interests of fairness we can call that the What Actually Happened model.
Who is right? I guess that depends on whether you think aliens killed JFK.
Mac Buckets
Actually, chopper, the poll I recalled was the ABC/BBC poll from around that time. That’s where the 51%-29% came from.
I think the “77% say ousting Saddam was worth it” came from the poll you linked. I probably conflated the two, as the ABC/BBC poll didn’t ask that question (wonder why not?).
I’ve seen some minor polls from this summer (you never know who’s paying for those things) and they offer mixed messages. One says (these numbers may not be exact, as I’m just citing them from memory) 33% of Iraqis are optimistic now, another says 63% of Iraqis say life will be better in a year and 82% say it will be better in 5 years.
I wish the big boys would step up to the plate again, but after that last one left egg on their faces, I don’t see it coming.
Bombadil
I doubt your numbers.
Links, please?
Zifnab
There is probably a more pressing poll Mac needs to worry about.
If Iraqis are so happy about how things are going in Iraq, if everything really is coming up roses, then perhaps we should leave it up to the Iraqis to take care of themselves. Since we’re going by how Iraqis feel:
(as of Jan 31, 2006)
According to your poll, the Iraqis are now happy and free. According to mine, they don’t want us there anymore. Mission Accomplished. It seems like now is the time to pack up and go home, eh Mac?
BlogReeder
Can anybody point to a credible claim that general quality-of-life issues, say electricity, sanitation, healthcare and general safety, are better off now than before?
Since when was our goal to increase the quality-of-life in Iraq? It sounds like a straw man argument you’re using. Our goal was to get rid of Saddam and help set up a democratic government, which we did. You forgot to add that we probably increased greenhouse gases too.
Bombadil
OK, thanks for the link, Mac B.
I wonder what the polls would show now. Your snapshot in time is about ten months old
chopper
see, this is why it helps to link to what you’re talking about instead of refusing to, you figure that stuff out instead of someone else.
dunno, why didn’t the WPO poll ask iraqis if they were better off? must be shenanigans.
well, you’re polling people in a country that’s slipping into civil war. polls are probably not going to all trend the same way. i’d say in general, at this point polls of iraqis are pretty unreliable given the situation on the ground there.
hell, given that it was (i assume) a phone poll the people who responded are those well-off enough to have reliable phone service, and are likely going to be a touch more optimistic about the state of the country. unlike in the US, where most everyone has a phone and thus phone polling is a more accurate assessment of the average person.
RSA
You have to appreciate the irony of even a partial justification for our actions in Iraq based on polls of Iraqis. I’d have thought that a complete dismissal of that kind of information would be more likely: “We don’t let foreigners determine our policies!” If only it were more along the lines of, “We’ll decide whether things are going well in Iraq based on our standards, not those of the former citizens of some Third World dictator.”
F. Authorati
Arguably false. Freedom was not featured in most of his speeches in 2002 or January 2003. It was by late February (after the call to invade had already been made, and we had troops in place) when questions about the evidence became more prevalent in the media and Powell’s presentation flopped for most of us.
Funny logic, put all those troops over there and then start trotting out more reasons just before you go in…
BlogReeder
hell, given that it was (i assume) a phone poll the people who responded are those well-off enough to have reliable phone service, and are likely going to be a touch more optimistic about the state of the country.
Don’t like the numbers, attack the methodology. :)
jg
Bullshit. There isn’t a conservative in the world who would have gone along with the idea of spending billions to help another country. Conserfatives don’t play that game. At least not the ones with integrity. Others will go along with whatever the fuck this administration says as long as they say the dems favor the opposite.
chopper
if it’s an unreliable poll it’s an unreliable poll whether you like the numbers or not. how was the lack of reliable phone service in much of the country accounted for by the polling authority?
Mac Buckets
I think it’s funny how you guys just can’t accept that your white liberal views about the little brown people for whom you’ve chosen yourselves to be spokesmen have been so consistently off-base. “That poll can’t be real! Iraq is a living hell! I’ve seen it on the news every night for three years! Cite that poll again, for the umpteenth time! Maybe it’s changed!” Anyway, see above for a couple of links. Not that you’ll believe what the Iraqis said, anyway…
There is no study anywhere in the world that would even float the laughable proposition that Coalition actions have made the food-and-medicine situation of Iraqi children worse than it was under Saddam.
Of course, you should know that the difference is that the Coalition is actively trying to make the situation better for the people of Iraq — not actively trying to make the situation worse, like Saddam did. We give medicine and food aid and have lifted sanctions. Whatever children die now of stavation and illness are not dying because of Coalition actions — they’re dying in spite of them.
And seriously — is someone seriously still pimping that Johns Hopkins study? They only inflated the casualty number by about 4X, compared to other, better, bigger studies like the one done by the UN. And they never attempted to segregate “humanitarian deaths” (by which I assume you mean sickness and starvation), anyway, so what’s your point?
So you’re content to let Saddam off the hook for killing a few thousand kids a month by not including that in your “Iraqis are unquestionably worse off” analysis? Sure, go for it, if you don’t want to be taken seriously.
At least you could work on the naive verbage of “unquestionably worse off.” Because, as I’ve shown, it’s highly, highly questionable.
RSA
Polling was face-to-face in the WPO poll. Here’s a line from the methodology that I didn’t get, though:
I don’t know where the 116 comes from; over 1000 people were polled.
Mac Buckets
But even then, the media and anti-Bush bloggers had been telling us for nearly three years how horrible we had made everything in Iraq (there was no more kite-flying!). They posted the most ridiculous justifications for those poll numbers when they happened — it was absolutely hilarious.
I have little reason to believe that something similar wouldn’t result if the poll were taken today.
But as I’ve said, the big boys lost interest in polling when the Iraqis didn’t burn Bush in effigy. Yes, I’d like to see a current poll, too. Wonder if we’ll ever get one.
chopper
interesting, i looked through the description and didn’t find anything about the method.
i take it they went into even the super-dangerous areas of iraq? if so those pollsters deserve hell of extra pay.
Mac Buckets
Looks like there were 116 cites where they polled — 5 had to be replaced for security concerns.
Mac Buckets
sites
Pb
RSA,
I’m assuming that “sampling points” refers to locations, not people.
chopper
they’ll get polled again soon, unless the situation makes a real turn for the worst.
polls in iraq don’t happen as often as they do in the US. if you look back at the polls in the years leading up to the one you cited, they were pretty sparse back then as well, being done as clusters in the same way.
of course, its always easier to blame the media, claiming some kind of conspiracy.
RSA
Thanks for the clarification on 116; that makes sense. Here’s the entire Methodology section:
So, some obvious bias in the site selection, but I haven’t see anything about the size of the effect.
Pb
RSA,
Personally I’d prefer a larger sample size, especially because these polls are so infrequent that it’s practically impossible to spot outliers, but–from that blurb at least–the methodology doesn’t strike me as unreasonable; rather, it’s pretty much in line with what I’d expect from a typical poll, and in fact better in some respects than some polls in the US.
Melodrama Buckets
What utter bullshit. The President never claimed our goal was to get rid of Saddam and help setup a democractic government.
Our goal right from the start was to stop Hussein from stealing milk money from children!
Tim F.
Mac, your commenting is truly a wonder to behold. You assign evil conspiracy theories to the press, you throw racist accusations against your opponents and then you get sniffy when somebody declines to take your uncited numbers seriously. Poor you. The people who took your cited numbers seriously after you declared they wouldn’t will undoubtedly wait awhile for the apology.
Now for the inevitable appeal to incredulity (a Mac staple):
Physicians have been killed or fled the country en masse so yes, the availabiilty of medicine is unquestionably down. For example see here, which pegs the decrease at about 22% of the prewar total, and that only counts recorded departuers, kidnappings and murders. Early retirements, which happen as often or more often than killings (as a precautionary measure) are not counted. In fact, see that PDF for any of a number of interesting factoids, especially polling. Not that it all helps me or you, it just seems content-rich.
Major stats like infant mortality and adult mortality appear to have changed little to at all from before to after invasion. Overall it seems as though you have very little real data on which to hang your bluster.
But wait, where is the strawman? Well there was the racist charge but I feel like we need more…
That’s more like it. What kind of a heinous person forgives Saddam for his awful crimes? Why an imaginary person, of course!
Separating the point from the bluster, you are just reiterating that you think that we have fewer humanitarian deaths now than pre-invasion. That point seems far from settled. If you can support it then great, we will all be that much better informed.
That is, unless that evil media conspiracy gets to me first…
Melodrama Buckets
Agreed. These fools suffering from Bush Derangement syndrome they don’t understand how much good we did by stopping Hussein from stealing milk money from the children. All they can focus on is kite flying! It’s pathetic.
As if kite flying is essential to establishing a Democratic Government.
I mean sure, kite flying is fun for children, but what good is flying kites if you don’t have milk to drink?
Bunch of lunatics! Good thing the voters never listen to them.
Melodrama Buckets
Can we talk about something different?
I’d rather talk about something important like the slaughter of horses in the United States for use as food overseas!
It’s one of the most vile, disgusting things I’ve ever seen in my entire life!
RSA
Thanks for the judgment, Pb. I sometimes don’t know exactly what to think about survey methodology.
Tsulagi
Yeah, me too! That evil hate-America MSM is hiding the true truth from us! We Bush warriors know what it’s really like.
We need to get the real truth-sayers to Iraq! Conduct face-to-face polling and interviews to bring truth to light back home in the face of all these Nazi appeasers.
There’s only one trusted choice for this mission! The
Aruba channel’sPatriot Warrior channel’s three men of steel: Hannity, Geraldo, and O’Reilly. Those giants, scoffing at the notion of wearing body armor outside the Green Zone, would find their rented convertible filled with flowers tossed their way while on drives through the bucolic countryside.Surely Fox News has plans to fill the truth void from within Iraq. Hey, if they send the dynamic trio to Baghdad suburbs and the countryside for fireside chats with the locals and take Annie with them to share the fun, I’ll even pay for ALL their flights. The least I could do as a patriotic American.
Mac Buckets
Attack the style, not the substance. Nice. So, do you accept the numbers, now that they’ve been cited and linked, and the methodology has been examined, Tim? Tim? Do you accept the — hello? Hello? Aww, I had my apology all ready for him, too!
And the “little brown people” bit is sarcastic, not racist, as it originated years ago with the lefty blogs accusing the right of not caring about the “little brown people.”
Link, please? Oh, the irony!
As to your logic, just because the Iraqis haven’t been able to fix all the health problems caused by the Saddam regime, doesn’t mean that the Saddam regime isn’t responsible for those problems, nor does it mean that the invasion is responsible.
The Iraq Health Ministry initiative was a three-year plan. They expect to release results, in conjunction with UNICEF and WHO, at year-end 2006. They’ve been reporting progress.
Only the deaths resulting from Saddam’s corrupt regime are supported by evidence from many worldwide bodies, while you are only assuming that there are equal deaths post-invasion, and you are assuming that they are the result of the invasion. Neither of these assumptions have been supported, much less quantified.
But, oh, yeah…Iraq is “unquesitonably worse off.” Just don’t ask the Iraqis!
Mac Buckets
Oh, Tim, that might be the most willfully dishonest reading of a comment in the histoy of blogging. Talk about melodrama! But, you got to fake a “strawman” comment out of it, which is all you really wanted, anyway. Way to go! I’m sure the three morons you fooled with that comment were really impressed!
RSA
I thought Tim F. was pretty clear. Mac Buckets:
I think this really means that Saddam’s political choices led to the deaths of those children, not that he killed them. But that’s a pretty flexible standard, isn’t it? Here’s an analogous observation: So war supporters are content to let Bush off the hook for killing a couple of thousand U.S. soldiers in Iraq. . .
Zifnab
You can do a number better than that.
So you pro-life advocates are content to let Bush off the hook for failing to make abortion illegal, thus killing millions of children every year.
Zifnab
Again, if we’re “asking the Iraqis” why do we still have boots on the ground in this so-called sovereign nation, Mac? That is one question you’ve failed to answer in all of this. Show me a poll that begs American troops to stay. Iraqis may be overjoyed that Saddam is gone, but they’re not overjoyed that we’re here to stay.
The worst the Democrats have asked for on the Congressional Floor has been plans for withdrawl. And yet, in the face of all this progress – a non-existant civil war, a blossoming of democracy, another corner being turned in the WoT – you insist we “Stay the Course” in Iraq as though the 130k troops are still necessary. Why can’t we bring our troops home Mac?
chopper
Fixed.
Larry
Our goal was to remove a supposedly proximate threat of WMDs, which we did not do, because the threat did not exist.
Our stated goal really had no particular future in mind for Iraq at all, nor did the planning an execution of the mission apparently have those things in mind either.
Creation of “democracy” became a marketing ploy designed to cover up for the dishonesty of the original mission’s goals and the impending failure of the adventure. However, even the democracy-creation mission was ill fated since it was based on a plan that had no chance of success even in a perfect target country under the best of circumstances, much less in a failed country mired in the worst of circumstances, in a region without any examples of successful democracy in any country with similar demographics.
The entire string of ill advised and poorly executed missions has left us with the quagmire you see today, and the sorry state of the Iraqi people who just continue to basically be victims of abuse by circumstances over which they have little control now for most of the last half century. The mess is under new management, but the new management doesn’t seem any more likely to get a good result than the old one did.
jg
Mac is once again on a crusade to point out the flaws in the arguments of anyone who doesn’t agree with what the Bush administration is doing.
BlogReeder
Our goal right from the start was to stop Hussein from stealing milk money from children!
We did that too!
Our goal was to remove a supposedly proximate threat of WMDs, which we did not do, because the threat did not exist.
If they don’t exist, then the threat is removed. Duh. :)
I don’t know why the fact that no WMD exist has any legs to stand on. We know he had them at one time and the only reliable way to make sure he didn’t have them would be to go in.
I keep thinking it’s like crossing the border to Canada and the Guard asks you if you have anything to declare and you jokingly say “yea, I got some sweet drugs in the trunk.” When they forcibly open the trunk and scatter your stuff all over the road, nobody is going to say the Guards we wrong because there were no sweet drugs in the trunk
BlogReeder
nobody is going to say the Guards we wrong
I meant “were wrong”. Damn spell checker.
RSA
I bet the families of 2600 or so U.S. soldiers think that’s a pretty funny joke.
BlogReeder
I bet the families of 2600 or so U.S. soldiers think that’s a pretty funny joke.
Maybe not. But that’s not your call. Too many people speak for other people. If you were offended, say it.
Mac Buckets
I hadn’t been asked today. Easy answer:
It’s the difference between me asking you how tall you are versus me asking you what we should do about North Korea. In the first case, you’re always going to give me the right answer. In the second case, you could be totally offbase, uninformed, or unhinged.
The Iraqi people will give the right answer for questions on their current state and there can be little disagreeing with them, but we (not to mention their own government) might totally disagree on their policy assessments.
chopper
i think the utter lack of any real post-war planning pretty much kills the argument that ‘bringing democracy to the iraqis’ was a reason for the invasion.
Mac Buckets
You make the same mistake Tim did. The part Tim misinterprets is that I never said he was excusing or forgiving the morality of Saddam’s actions. So his melodramatic “What kind of a heinous person forgives Saddam for his awful crimes? Why an imaginary person, of course!” tangent was not terribly clever. But he loves him some strawman defense!
I merely noted that he was “letting Saddam off the hook” in terms of his Grand Equation, and I was clear about that. He can’t make this claim that Iraqis are “unquestionably” worse off now…and ignore the majority of the deaths that Saddam’s policies and corruption caused. Those must factor into Tim’s equation, even if they belie his (pre-conceived) conlusions.
So I’m certainly not letting Bush off the hook — our servicemen’s lives (I suppose it would helpful to draw a distinction between innocent poor children and a modern volunteer soldier, too) are definitely factored into any equation for the war.
jg
Seriously Mac, you think we’re doing a good job over there and this was all worth the billions spent on it?
Larry
Fortunately, Mac, we at least have a government that never descends to the level of pre-conceived conclusions, eh?
That’s why we were ready for the levees in Katrina, and ready for the sectarian unrest in Iraq. That’s why we knew that America was ready for a new Social Security model, all we needed was a president we could trust to go out and sell it. That’s why we caculated correctly that we could wage an endless war and cut taxes at the same time without sinking the nation into debt. That’s why George Bush knew that the warnings about UBL in August 2001 were just butt covering exercises. That’s why Dick Cheney told us that energy conservation wasn’t for adult consideration. That’s why we decry the meddling of activist judges who want to interfere with the rightful application of executive power, except in the case of gay marriage where nobody in government should have power, except to amend the Constitution to give the government power to control who marries whom, or something.
Anyway, I am glad that we are here standing firm against preconceived notions! Damned few of us left.
Mac Buckets
We won’t know for a few years.
ThymeZone
Well, Bush has said that the future of Iraq will be settled by “future presidents.”
I like that “in the fullness of time” approach. It puts and end to pesky things like accountability.
Mac Buckets
When a government attempts big, complicated things, it naturally takes longer to assess the results. Of course, when a government attempts big, complicated things, the chances of the assessment being positive decreases, according to Mac’s Law (The size of a bureaucratic democracy is inversely proportional to the age level at which you can expect it to succeed in any given task. The US government works best at tasks you can describe in three words or less to a three-year-old.).
ThymeZone
Well, I think when our government thinks it should attempt a big complicated thing, it owes us some stuff:
1) Total honesty and disclosure from the get go
2) A comprehensive and exhaustive plan that handles the beginning, the middle and the end.
3) An honest assessment of the risks and fallback plans
4) A straightforward statement of the expected costs
5) A clear explanation of the expected timeline
6) Time and space for a full and honest debate
Zero out of six, in the case of the Iraq war, leads a lot of reasonable people to think that these chowderheads screwed the pooch big time, and should be fired forthwith.
Mac Buckets
That’s not realistic, and I’m fairly certain that no government in world history has ever offered (or could offer) a plan for war that would satisfy even half of your standards. Still, in Utopia, it would be nice.
ThymeZone
1) Well, it sure isn’t realistic with this government
2) Relevant world history begins in 1787, and there isn’t much history for liberal democracies invading foreign territory to overthrow governments, in preemptive wars without any actual provocation.
3) If this crummy government had been able to do a mediocre job with half of my list, they wouldn’t be in the hole they are in today. And any competant government in this country could have, should have and would have done better. Your attempt to defend these losers by making a lame reference to Utopia is just nonsense. But if you meant that “Utopia” means “Anything but Bush”, well, then you are right.
Tim F.
I could write a Mac script. Step 1: Say something inflammatory. Yes, ‘brown people’ is obviously a racism charge and yes I think that liberals who use it are being disingenuous. Naughty them. Seeng as how I have never used it, your sarcasm seems off-target at best. Step 2: wait for the inevitable comment. Step 3: cry about it.
You have a funny sense of irony, Mac. Look back and find where I said that your numbers are wrong. It doesn’t seem to be there. Hmm. Maybe that means I think that your survey is just fine as a single data point taken ten months ago. The second or third line of my Mac script would be: reference uncited data, wait for somebody to ask for link, cry about it.
Zing! I’m glad you asked. My bad for running off to get ready for Rosh Hashanna without proofreading. This chart provides baseline data, although it skips over the sanctions period. Compare that with this chart: infant mortality has scarcely changed. You also dismissed my cited data about the availability of physicians. Trying to hurt a guy’s feelings?
As for adult mortality, you can get the 2004 stats here. Trends have largely skipped the sanctions period. If you have numbers, great.
Good for them. Right now we know diddly except that Iraqis have at least a 22% lower chance of seeing a doctor, and infant mortality hasn’t budged.
As long as we are on the humanitarian sidetrack, I wonder if you would like to comment on how the women of Iraq feel these days. Riverbend has her opinion, but of course she’s obviously a liberal. Time was that they could go outside unaccompanied, with pants, an uncovered head and even drive without risking a beating or worse. It would surprise me if that had zero impact on your judgment.
So now that we have given your humanitarian sidetrack more than enough pixels, back to the actual point. If you measure the average Iraqi’s chance of dying violently it seems that things have unquestionably worsened. Since you enjoy polls, reference Iraqi views about the security situation in that document from my earlier comment. If the humanitarian situation has not improved, and signs indicate that it has not (subject to revision, of course, when actual data comes out at the end of the year) then the bloody chaos on the streets scarcely seems like an improved situation. Correct me if I missed anything.
Tim F.
Jeesh, how could I forget to slip in a snarky reference to the evil media conspiracy that bottles up the Good News. Slipping I am…
Frank
Tim- You should frontpage some form of that last big post it would save everyone time dealing with mac.
Mac Buckets
Oh, please. Tim, you’re doing it again. I know that you concern yourself so much with the style because you find the substance difficult to deal with. And it’s such a cowardly defense, to accuse me of “crying” when all I did was post “attack the style not the substance.” I’m not upset that you feel it necessary to portray me this way — I just see the weakness behind it. Shall I blackquote a random sentence of yours and post that all you do is “cry” about my style? Would that make my points more valid? Grow up, Tim.
Thanks for admitting it, even if it took you a few tries and even if you’re still hedging.
Right, it’s a data point from Iraqi people (which is more than you’ve offered, by the way), and it’s the most recent large-scale data point, and it’s a data point that, when it was published, ran 180 degrees from the narrative your side was/is pushing. As BBC said, the polls of actual Iraqis pegged Bush to be more correct about the state of Iraq than the all-negative-all-the-time sensationalist media.
First of all, it’s not a sidetrack, no matter how much you assert it. You cherry-picked the terms for your little thesis, and I am 100% right in saying that you can’t simply ignore what Saddam’s policies did to the food and medicine situation in Iraq during the sanction period. With the Coalition’s help, Saddam’s “screw the people” strategy is now being reversed.
My point is, let Iraqis speak for Iraqis. No one elected you their spokesman. 77% of the people you claim are “unquestionably worse off” said it’s been worth it to oust Saddam. So wearing certain clothes vs. living under a brutal dictatorial regime… it must weigh out for most in favor of freedom. This doesn’t mean the situation for women is one that needn’t be examined. If there are substantial changes the next time we ask Iraqis the “was it worth it” question, then we can address what has changed.
Ampersand
RSA, about the methodology of that study: Do you know how many of the interviewed were women, and how many were men?