Welcome, incoming readers. The site shifted some time ago to www.julescrittenden.com. Come on over when you're done here:
A number of Canadians took offense recently to a Boston Herald column in which I slammed Canada and Europe in general for failing to hold up their end in this war for democracy, freedom and security. Specificially, I slammed them for being smug democracies that do little to help the truly oppressed of this world, while throwing insults at us and obstacles in our way.
Whatever I thought about their government's attitude toward Iraq, and the insults that were leveled at our president, Canadian soldiers have been fighting and dying in Afghanistan.
I would like to commend and thank the Canadians and others for what they are doing in Afghanistan, and to express my respect for their sacrifices.
But I would still like to know where the Canadians, the French and the Germans in particular were when we needed them in Iraq ... if only to get out of the way. In fact, we could use a lot more troops in Iraq right now. More to the point, the Iraqis could use a lot more troops. They could also use the knowledge that the world actually gives a damn and is willing to stand with them, rather than always against us.
Some people say they don't want the French there ... deer hunting with an accordian. Some people say coordinating a multinational force can create as many problems as it solves. More to the point, most people would say this is all idle and pointless dreaming.
But I'm an optimist and a dreamer. Why not? Tens of thousands of troops flooding in, under NATO leadership, to engage aggressively as we've seen them do in Afghanistan. Do these nations care about Iraq? They claim to. Do they care about freedom and stability in the Middle East? They pretend to. So let's end the hypocrisy. We all know what is needed in Iraq. It isn't a pullout.
I'm ready to see the free, prosperous nations of the world stand up. Even the French nation, about which I've expressed disgust, I am ready to welcome into the fold of purposeful, moral nations such as Australia, Britain, the United States, Italy, Poland, Denmark, Romania, ever-true South Korea and Thailand -- with us in Vietnam, as was my ancestral land of Australia -- even pacifist Japan. I live for the day when I don't have to disparage the French. I know the French people are capable of bravery in the face of adversity. Let's see it. And don't talk to me about Lebanon, where the French nation only illustrated how unreliable and vainglorious it can be when it played its coy game last summer, finally being shamed by the Italians into making a commitment that has yet to be tested.
Then, there is the issue of Muslim nations. A lot of noise, a lot of trouble, not a lot of action to any good end. Muslim nations want peace in Iraq? How about cutting off the support to the terrorists from Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. How about, from Morocco to Indonesia, offering up some troops? Do you care about Iraq? Prove it.
Some people might think this is crazy. Another pointless dream. More trouble than its worth. Most of them aren't even democracies, and their populations are hostile to the United States. But I'd like to see their leaders explain to their people the benefits of doing something good for their co-religionists. And I'd like to see them, as I would like to see the French, the Germans and the Russians, move toward joining the ranks of mature, responsible nations in the world.
I keep coming back to what the Kashmiri separatist told me, a killer who had nearly been killed himself, who claimed to have at last foresworn violence, when I asked him what he thought he could do against the might of the Indian Army. I don't think anything anyone has said to me ever quite turned on a light in my head, and changed my perspective about what is possible, as what that man said:
"There once was a great Soviet Union. There once was a Berlin Wall. Those things are no more."
And in a moment, the world changed. It can change again.
Update: Here are some other people's thoughts on winning vs. losing.
My conservative tabloid brother at the NY Post John Podhoretz with the truth on Iraq.
Cal Thomas with what the ISG forgot to figure in.
Belmont Club mulls some of the harsh realities on the ground.
Don Sensing suggests some Arab nations may have reasons for not wanting to see peace in Iraq.
And there are those who just ... don't ... get it:
Exhibit A, Justin Logan at the Cato Insititute.
Exhibit AA, H.D.S. "Can We Go Home Now?" Greenway at the Boston Glob.
For my Canadian readers, some of whom may not like what they see, let me add one more time that my respect for Canadians in action is great, informed by a number of Canadian friends and relatives who have served: notably in combat, the Worthingtons.
Hope you enjoyed it. That was a while ago. More at the new site, www.julescrittenden.com
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
You forgot to mention South Korea.
From your mouth to God's ear.
What about Poland? You forgot Poland!
You don't win allies by deliberately smacking them in the face and then saying your hand slipped.
You started out with an apology to my country, Canada, and then you insulted us again. As a sovereign country, we choose which wars we'll support and the fact that your war in Iraq has failed can't be fixed by us. We're already taking care of your mess in Afghanistan while the US is pulling troops and funding.
Just where, exactly, do you imagine these 'tens of thousands' of NATO troops would come from? No country in NATO besides yours has those numbers and you certainly shouldn't complain about other countries when the US doesn't have any more soldiers to spare on the battlefield either.
You need to put the responsibility for the failures of your military misadventures right where they belong - in DC in the offices of Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney. This isn't about France or Canada. It's about your failed leadership and lack of proper planning.
"Do these nations care about Iraq?"
The answer is obvious, Crittenden--yes they do. Exhibit A is the fact that they did not choose to preemptively invade a sovereign nation.
Catnip has you dead to rights. You want NATO troops and I want a pony.
You don't recognize terrorist propaganda even when it's coming out of the mouth of a terrorist, and you repeat the message to the Western world. Nice work, you're a useful tool, Jules.
- Sean
Sorry to let you down Julesy, but we Canadians have had enough of a taste in Afghanistan of what it means to "partner up" with America's new 21st century outsourced civilian military. Thanks but no thanks. We don't fight with mercenaries, and our troops don't take orders from Blackwater amateurs, or Halliburton suits.
what a freaking tool.
sorry, but the world doesn't want to risk their soldiers for a failed, illegal and immoral war based on lies.
everyone knew that every 'fact' presented as a pretense to this folly was false. everyone knew it was going to be a quagmire. but you and your chickenhawk friends wanted a war so you could strut your manly stuff around.
I, and the rest of the world, hang this war around YOUR neck like a burning tire.
YOU fix it, you stinking hypocrite.
Thanks, Jules, for saying what needs to be said.
Judging by the bunched-up panties you were spot-on.
Judging by the bunched-up panties you were spot-on.
Ah, good ol' rightwing logic. Say something offensive, and when someone takes offense, claim that it's proof of correctness.
...You should write for the Boston Herald.
You guys own the Iraq failure. Next time you start a pre-emptive war, don't lie your way into it.
AHAhahahaha!
Chee it looked like so much fun three years ago huh? Aircraft landings, mission accomplished banners, jerk offs like you; smug and content and now the reality cheque has arrived and you want help paying for it?
On behalf of Canada and all the other sensible nations who said “Uh yeah, you guys go on, let us know how it works out.” here’s a mallet and a jar of sand; I’ll leave you to work out where what goes and how it gets there.
But while we’re on the topic way to drop the ball in Afghanistan. Where’s that bin Laden guy anyway? Didn’t Bush say something about Dead or Alive or was it that bin Laden didn’t matter? Some flipping and flopping there.
You elected that idiot back into power after witnessing what a miserable failure he was, you clean up the mess he made; Iraq is your problem and yours alone.
Enjoy!
In the case of Canada, the decision not to go Iraq was made by the former Liberal government. I heard from an inside source that they were all set to help but pulled the plug at the last minute in order to please Quebec. Common wisdom though is that then PM Chretien made the decision. Given his ability to control "facts" the truth is not clear.
Our current PM likely would have gone along and I would have agreed with that decision.
The failure in Iraq, such as it is (trust the media?) can never be entirely the fault of the Bush administration. The opposition to that war caused a delay that allowed time to hide WMD and set up an insurgency. The ongoing opposition especially within the U.S. has encouraged Iran and Syria to play their role in causing the failure of democracy.
Note: The Iraq War was entirely justified without the WMD issue. That was plain in 2002 and the 9/11 Commission reported that Saddam was on a path to defeat the sanctions and resume full-scale WMD production.
Wait a sec there Thermblog... I'm confused...
allowed time to hide WMD
and resume full-scale WMD production.
So he had WMD that he hid but he still had to make some?
Well where did the WMD go? You mean to say that Bush let lose WMD in the Middle East? How does that make the world safer?
Where is all the massive amount of equipment needed for "full-scale WMD production"? That would mean factories, and raw materials and a host of other stuff never found.
I love this wingnut logic, no WMD found means that they're some place else (but the invasion was still a good idea!) or that Saddam was just about to make it with equally missing equipment.
In short at this point you have to be a special kind of idiot to believe in WMD.
Oh as for the rest of your nonesense about JC not going to Iraq because of Quebec, do you have any proof of this? Cuz that's newz to me.
salvage: I said time was provided for Saddam to do these things. Whether he did them is not certain. See my note though.
I also said the truth is unclear about Canada's position. It's certain that Chretien is anti-American. He may have welcomed a Quebec NON. There was quite a bit written about it at the time. Eddie Goldenberg's new book refutes what I say but then again, he may have done it on Chretien's instructions. In Canada a majority PM has powers that go beyond those of a US president.
See my note and the 9/11 report.
Thermblog wrote:
"...the 9/11 Commission reported that Saddam was on a path to defeat the sanctions and resume full-scale WMD production."
That's important information, and something I wasn't aware of before. So I just went searching in my copy of the 9/11 Report and can't find this particular info anywhere. Can you please cite page number?
if you've misplaced your copy, you can find it here as a PDF: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05aug20041050/www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf
Canada did not go to Iraq with the USA because for years, the Liberal/Quebec/Eastern government had been gutting our military, as part of building a 'new' heaven, different from our dreadful anglosphere country, more in line with Trudeau's French, civil servant dominated, elitist country with nice empty spaces for camping.
In the specific instance of Iraq: a very large French bank had made a deal with Saddam for rights to a new oil concession in the NW of that country. This was potentially worth billions to the investors. Who is a major stockholder of this bank, and on the Board of Directors? Jean Chretien's son-in-law. Yep, in Canada, it was ALL ABOUT OIL.
When the US invaded Iraq and took out Saddam, it screwed up a perfectly good investment!!
Canada, like Europe, can afford to sit back and chat about how superior we are to the gun wielding, war loving AmeriKKKans... because we don't have to worry about our security: the AmeriKKKans look after that.
I wonder when the US is going to take a look at all these 'Allies" and start withdrawing military support from their lazy, self indulgent 'citizens.'
Do you know that during WWII, Canada had the 2d largest navy in the world? I have often wondered to got the $$$ when those corvettes, etc were sold off..
Hey, Jules... do you by any chance agree w/ this particular abstract of your argument?
"If the world will help us clean up the mess we made in Iraq, I'd be willing to forgive them for not helping us create the mess in the first place."
That's Tbogg for ya... always getting right to the heart of the matter (and placing the stake just-so).
trying to remember the names of those Great Canadian Oil Investors: ok, finally, Paul Demarais, owner of Power Corp, long an "ally" of the Liberal Government, also has huge ownership in French/Belgian bank (name I forget)... and whose son (who is on the board of directors of said bank) is the husband of Jean Chretien's daughter. Cozy, eh?
Heather... so the "cozy" connection is this Demarais guy, huh? The part owner of a French/Belgian bank on whose board sits the husband of Chretien's daughter?
It might be something, but it sure doesn't seem "cozy."
"Cozy," to me, means "close and comfy." A "cozy" relationship would not involve the contortions you've obviously undergone to find your connection. IMO, of course!
Wouldn't it make more sense that Chretien saw, as did most of the world, that after Saddam was toppled, the occupation could only be a disaster (one need only look at history to see why)? When looking for answers, I tend to find those that stare me right in the eye. But, again, that's just me.
Best to forget about "allies". I know that my German compatriots see this war as a spectator sport, but many were like that even in the Cold War. They do not oppose the war for humanitarian reasons but because it is easy. They are sending troops to Afghanistan as a gesture, not to make much a difference there. As for Iraq, they are smug and self-satisfied to have opposed it, even though their participation would have been symbolic anyway - the German army isn´t much. Europeans were furious that America wouldn´t listen to them, but they never asked themselves what they did have to offer.
I mean, even if they desperately wanted to save Iraq, how much more would they be doing? Produce even more hot air, arrogant lectures and diatribes?
And the value of diplomacy, well, we are seeing what the EU 3 are getting from Iran: precisely nothing in return for three decades of "constructive dialogue" and lucrative trade.
Few Germans know how they profited from the war: until March 2003 we had about 1000 Iraqis applying for asylum per month, mostly Kurds. That figure dropped sharply after the war. Today, we get more asylum seekers from Turkey than from Iraq, almost 3000 from Turkey in all of 2005. And some say that country is a candidate for EU-membership.
The return of over 3 million Afghan refugees after 2002 would normally be called a humanitarian miracle. Has anything like it ever been achieved by any peace mission? But we (and I think that goes for some of the commenters here) would rather let these people live in hell, or be killed as in Darfur, than give the US credit or support. With its diversity of opinion and , the US couldn´t match this degree of hypocrisy if it tried.
As far as I remember, the rumour was that Paul Desmarais´ Power Corp had control of BNP Paribas, the French bank which had the very profitable UN oil-for-food accounts. I don´t think Power Corp has ever controlled BNPP, although they had a stake in them at one time and I believe one of Desmarais sons was on the board once (which is not that unusual or significant).
More interesting is the fact that Power Corp has a huge stake in Total, the oil company that was eager to get back into Iraq and had apparently received promises of riches from Saddam.
Desmarais son is indeed married to Chrétiens daughter France. Chrétien and former PM Paul Martin worked for Desmarais once (Martin was president of Canadian Steamship Lines and got stinking rich when Desmarais sold him the company). He is also closely connected with Brian Mulroney, another former PM. Another former Power Corp president is Maurice Strong...just google him.
None of which proves anything except that Desmarais is a powerful man. But if this was Halliburton, you guys wouldn´t think twice to declare it a web of corruption. In fact, Halliburton is like nothing compared to these connections.
The thing that is so ghastly - for me - is that Canada acted like a Banana Republic when the US attacked Iraq. Instead of a mature consideration of Canada's best interests in 2003, it came down to Total Elf Fina's interest in an Iraqi oil concession.. but boy, do the Nice People of Toronto feel morally superior to the AmeriKKKans with their guns as we all sat back and watched the US go into the Middle East.
As Mark Steyn has asked, how did "da liddle guy from Shawinigan" (Chretien) become a millionaire, after being nothing more than a Canadian politician for most of his life... aside from a very short hiatus as an 'employee' of Lang Mitchener Law Firm (VERY old Liberal stronghold), where, it seems, he told people how to 'do things' in Canada.
Also, there is the matter (LONG time ago)of Maurice Strong and Petro Fina and Petro Canada and the Belgian stock exchange... and how Trudeaupian cronies made out like bandits, in a scam that took the Canadian taxpayer for millions. Oh well.
You have to know that "Environmentalism" is a huge pork barrel when Strong is involved. Wasn't he involved in the "Ethics" commission of the UN? And his daughter???
I LOVE being a citizen of a banana republic. Although, do banana republics have "citizens", or just "marks."
What garbage. Heather, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Take heart, Americans. Canada is not perfect. We have our very own rightwing loonies. Huzzah!
jules, i say to you what i say to all proponents of the war: either go enlist, or shut the hell up.
Heather can you provide any links to back up your whacky ass consiparcy theory you've spun up there?
But whatever, let's say for a second that what you're saying is true (much less make sense) wouldn't it be simpler to cozy up to the Americans and then complete the contract with the government in power?
The deals made with Saddam can still be carried through to the next government. It doesn't matter who that government is. The oil is still there, the Iraqi government, no matter who runs it, will still want the oil out of the ground and in our cars.
You people are hysterical in every sense of the word, you grasp at any straw to avoid reality.
There were no WMD.
No, no spare me the Democratic quotes talking about Saddam and WMD. They didn't invade so it doesn't matter what they said.
The invasion was a mistake.
Iraq is now worse off than under Saddam. No, no spare me the Saddam horror stories, I'm fully aware. I'm also fullly aware that those horrors have been multiplied. Instead of just Saddam thugs the Iraqis have to avoid other thugs, terrorists, insurgents, crossfires, IEDs and everything else. the only thing to change in Iraq is their source of misery.
And this is all Bush's fault along with his administration and the various mouthbreathers would cheered it on.
Those are the facts and it doesn't matter what dirty oil deeds went on in your mind. Carping about corruption in the face of the carnage in Iraq is the height of inanity.
jules, i say to you what i say to all proponents of the war: either go enlist, or shut the hell up.
Ah, the old chickenhawk argument. Well, dog, the next time you go to support your sports team, don't just sit and watch: put on a uniform and get the hell in there! The next time you need medical treatment, by God, get some training and treat yourself! The next time you go to a restaurant and the food is bad, just march into that kitchen and cook it yourself! When your politicians don't behave according to your lights, get yourself elected! Unless you do, you certainly don't have the right to complain about any of it.
See? The argument is the same, and just as stupid.
Actually, I'm too old to enlist. That's why I had to go there as a civilian. That would have been back when you weren't being a human shield. Do me a favor, dingdong. Do the google search before leaving comments. You'll find lots of good war criminal/art thief material you can snark on.
OK, as you were.
IncandenzaH
I must apologize for referring to the 9/11 report when I meant the Iraq Survey Group (Duelfer) Report; also for being unable to get back to you yesterday.
The report is here:
http://tinyurl.com/6rdmo
This reference is the first item in "Key Findings"
He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.
In reality though, this should be obvious without the report. It is unfortunate that many, blinded by their hatred of GWB, prefer to ignore these real dangers.
Thanks for the citation/link, Thermblog. But don't you think that what Saddam might have "wanted" to do, was actually very different from what he actually "could" have done? I mean, like most anybody else, I want a pony... but I live in an apartment building that doesn't allow ponies. I don't doubt that Saddam wanted a lot of things ("death to America," for one), but he wasn't about to get that, either. Um... at least, not until W's crew sauntered in and started dismantling the U.S. Constitution in an insane attempt to "root out ter'rists." Death to America? I fear I hear the death rattle now..... what are its final words? ... I can almost make them out... (HABEAS CORPUS!... shudder... She dies...)
I disagree IncandenzaH. Saddam was near having nukes in 1981. Since then Pakistan has made and sold technology. Why would Saddam not be able to get them?
Today Ahmedinejad issued an ultimatum to the west, along the lines of "convert to Islam or die." We are in effect at war for the survival of our civilization. Iraq was just one battle in that war. I think the idea was to pick a country that could be beaten with the minimum of bloodshed and one that was a legal target being in defiance of so many UNSC resolutions. Had a speedy democracy been established, it might have spread.
A decent idea & as I said before the opposition owns at least part of the failure.
RebeccaH said...
jules, i say to you what i say to all proponents of the war: either go enlist, or shut the hell up.
Ah, the old chickenhawk argument. Well, dog, the next time you go to support your sports team, don't just sit and watch: put on a uniform and get the hell in there! The next time you need medical treatment, by God, get some training and treat yourself! The next time you go to a restaurant and the food is bad, just march into that kitchen and cook it yourself! When your politicians don't behave according to your lights, get yourself elected! Unless you do, you certainly don't have the right to complain about any of it.
See? The argument is the same, and just as stupid.
____________________________
RebeccaH,
I’m not sure I follow your logic.
One has the option of pursuing any of the “counter-examples” you cite with varying odds of success, but the chances of being accepted into the military are very high for able-bodied adults aged 18 and 42. Given that the United States armed forces have had to lower enlistment qualifications in order to attain their recruiting goals, and that those same forces are open to all Americans who can meet those requirements, I’m not sure why calls for war-backers to put their money where their mouths are meet with your derision.
Sports fans can bitch and moan about the performance of their team, since they HAVE to back the players that team fields simply because the vast majority of them don’t have the ability to do the job themselves. That’s not the case with military service, and advocating said service for other people – the potential consequences for whom include death, crippling injury and long-lasting psychological scarring – especially when many of those doing the advocating are capable of doing the same job themselves, is the very epitome of cowardly hypocrisy.
Sure, sacrifices would need to be made, but just like when someone is sufficiently angry about the performance of an elected representative to quit a job, expose themselves to public scrutiny and stand for election, if the war REALLY matters to you, you’d enlist or encourage your children to do so. Certainly, there are supporters of the war who are too old or too infirm to enlist, but the idea that that covers all of the people who advocate(d) the occupation is ludicrous.
It really is this simple: if hardship and death for other people in the cause of something you support are OK, but hardship and death for you and yours are not, then your true commitment to that cause is highly suspect. If the shoe fits, chickenhawk is as good a name as any.
thermblog... all I can say is that given all his various opportunities (if that is what they were), Saddam never got his pony... er... nukes (or other WMD or whathaveyou). Apparently that's YOUR "pony" and I'm sorry that you didn't get that, either.
And as far as wishes about "if we'd established democracy", just let me ride an old saying: "If a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass a-hopping." Democracy was never an option for Iraq... strongarm dictator installed by the U.S., maybe, but democracy never. What makes you think Iraq would be different from other democracies that elected leaders we (i.e., America) doesn't approve of: Amadinajad in Iran, Chavez in Venezuela... I could go on (and will, if pressed... but don't... I'm already so darn tired de-bunking right-wing fantasies I almost can't sit up straight, at this point). Suffice to say, those on the Left who were against this war deserve absolutely NO blame for the current situation. As you can read in Russ Feingold's speech during (what passed for) debate on the senate floor, the situation we're seeing now was predicted by MANY in the U.S. and around the world, which is why the majority of our allies decided to sit this one out. It's Bush's (and his cheerleaders') mess... now please fix it. Please. My advice wasn't taken before the war & I shot my load then. Now I don't know HOW we're gonna get the heck out of there, without a LOT more (predictable) bloodshed on both sides. Right now, I just tear up thinking about this mess ... and how easy it would have been to avoid it!
Post a Comment