Iraqis claim their Second Amendment rights

The incomptence in the handling of the occupation in Iraq has been so complete, at virtually every stage, that it seems at times to be a well executed plan to keep Iraq in a state of civil war, presumably to justify our continued presence there to keep Iran from gaining too much influence over Iraq. The British at the height of their empire called the tactic "Divide and Rule", so it is not w/o precedent.

Those missing guns may just be the fuel to keep the conflict going, "feeding the beast" so to speak, intentionally or not. We are also arming Sunni Tribes to kill Al Qaeda, otherwise known as the Iraqi Salafis, knowing full well they will not limit the use to the Salafis, but that they will also be used against Shia militias and Iraqi security forces. Of course, so long as we are arming them, our soldiers will not be targeted as much as they were before this strategy, and our presence tempers the use of the arms against government forces, but once we leave Iraq, if we ever do, those arms would be the fuel for the escalation of civil war that certainly will follow our departure.

So the strategy makes sense only if we know we will never leave Iraq, and if we have decided the only solution for Iraq is to allow it to break it up into 3 provinces, Sunni, Shia and Kurd, which is essentially happening now as the mixed areas are becoming cleansed of those in the minority. Our presence will be required to prevent or minimize civil war between the provinces and prevent Iran from gaining too much influence over Iraq. Whether this was or is the plan or simply a result of the many mistakes made is anyones guess.

PTodd -

Actually, British colonial tactics were a bit more nuanced than the tactics used in Iraq - we would never have dismissed the Army and Civil service in Iraq. Divide and Rule actually meant that substantial local elite would be given significant power and would then act as the main enforcers to the rest of this population.

What the US seems to have tried in Iraq is something similar to the Post-WWII de-nazification of Germany. Unfortunately, the Germany there were occupation forces initially of the order of 2 million to a population of perhaps 40-50 million, a ratio of 1 to 20 or 30. And most of the able-bodied men were in prison camps to start with.

Contrast with Iraq, with occupation forces of perhaps 150,000 to a population of 25 million - over 100 to 1, and with all the able bodied men sent home with guns!

We shoud either have sent in far more troops, if complete disarmament was required, OR never dismissed the civil service and army. Decent pay hikes would have helped as well. Plus the first aim of the reconstruction effort should have been to give Iraq full employment.

But that was then.. now it's hard to see what could be done.

I was thinking the other day about the parallels between Vietnam and Iraq, and this is one good example. As I understand it, we poured a boatload of weapons into the ARVN and much of it got sold to or captured by the VC. Maybe it's just unavoidable, but it make things a lot worse for us when we arm the opposition.

With regards to splitting Iraq into three regions, I wonder if that's the best solution since Iraq is an artificial country anyway. Like Yugoslavia. Amazing how we are still dealing with the aftermath of WW1 and 2 and European colonialism. Not as much amazing as sad, Americans get killed attempting to muddle through old artifacts of Brit and French empires.

On a somewhat related topic, should the US be militarily active in the world, or should we revert to the 1930's policy of isolationism? Would that give rise to a new form of facism?

As a student of genocide, I feel compelled ask participants of EFFECT MEASURE to study the question that no one seems willing to investigate openly: Is the U.S. government implementing a Final Solution, viz., the destruction of Iraq's remaining civilian population by death or physical and/or mental incapacitation?

In light of the available evidence suggesting this horrific possibility of a Final Solution, including the studies published in the Lancet regarding the catastrophic death toll induced by both comprehensive economic sanctions against Iraq by the U.S. under the fig leaf of the U.N., and now the impact of almost half a decade of U.S. occupation of Iraq (under the fig leaf of the rapidly dwindling "Coalition of the Willing" as well as the later, the fig leaf of U.N.), are we not becoming complicit in this crime, if we fail to investigate and disseminate our findings particularly as our own Constitutional rights continue to shrink in the U.S.?

Is this appeal not more realistic than fanciful in suggesting that absent immediate and effective action, our own right to investigate and to disseminate our findings will continue to be curtailed de jure, de facto or both?

I feel this issue demands immediate, unflinching and rigorous analysis in view of the reality the effects of U.S. policy towards Iraq since the 1980s. Please note I cite estimates badly in need of refinement. As a top U.S. general famously declared: "We don't do body counts." He did not, unfortunately add the full truth, " The U.S. government does all it can to prevent knowledge of its atrocities, irrespective of the scale of the atrocities".

Certainly it appears that the U.S. has brought pressure on U.S., Iraqi, and international health agencies to block assessments of the lethal impacts of U.S. policy in Iraq. If pressure fails, the US then strives mightily to discredit the findings irrespective of their merit.

To give only two examples, if memory serves, WHO was preparing an assessment of the massive use of DU weapons in Iraq by the US, but, evidently was blocked by US intervention. Further, irrespective of the scientific merits of the studies on the massively lethal impact of sanctions and later the war and occupation on Iraqis, as published by the Lancet, the U.S. starting with George W Bush, dismissed the findings and U.S. government worked mightily to bury the impact of the findings.

=================================================
Please note these estimates bearing on the hypothesis of a Final Solution by considering that the total population of Iraq is c. 20 million.

1) the US inticed Iraq to fight an 8 war against Iran and supported this war with US intelligence, weapons and diplomatic support (while simultaneously selling weapons to Iran directly and through foreign intermediaries).

--> estimated Iraq dead and permanently disabled = c. 1 million

Next, between 1990 and 2003, the U.S. imposed comprehensive sanctions against Iraq which via highly selective holds and blocks, particularly on items needed to rebuild the destroyed water treatment and distribution facilities and the electric power on which these facilities depend, prevented rebuilding of the infrastructure indispensable for the survival of civilians. See the partially declassified Defense Intelligence Agency documents detailing how this could be achieved and how using sanctions alone, the Iraqis could be rendered powerless to rebuild the water infrastructure and that the water infrastructure would totally collapse within 6 months. Just google "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities" to read this document from a .mil website.
Further declassified DIA documents reveal that DIA estimated who would die and the underlying cause of death (children under 5 and water borne diseases respectively) and then monitored and confirmed their predictions. Google: Nagy Secret behind the sanctions

for the underlying documents available on-line from DOD.

2) --> estimated Iraqi dead from the sanctions & their manipulation by US holds and blocks, 1990-2003, c. 2 million

3) --> estimated number of Iraq children permanently mentally and/or physically disabled due to severe in utero and/or post birth severe malnutrition c. 3 million

With U.S. occupation well into its 5th year, through a combination of direct use of military force and and inciting civil war

4) --> estimated Iraqi dead c. 1 million

5) --> estimated number of Iraqis forced to flee Iraq c. 2 million

6) --> estimated number of Iraqi civilians disabled by PTSD induced by U.S. military attacks and the U.S. incited civil war, c 4 million.

This is my own crude estimate extrapolating from U.S. figures on percentage of US troops suffering from PTSD after spending at most a couple of years (intersperced with some US dwell time) in the Iraqi killing fields vs. continuous exposure of the Iraqi population to worse conditions, without , for more than 4.25 years. I solicit the help of other colleagues whose training in psychiatric epidemiology is more current than mine, to refine this vital estimate.

If these figures are even close U.S. policy has resulted, to date, of killing or permanently disabling or making refugees of the Iraqis is (very) approximately:

1+2+3+1+2+4 million = 13 million Iraqis killed, permanently disabled or forced to flee their country.

Hence, if these figures are even approximately correct, the U.S. has already "thinned out" more than 50% of the population of Iraq. It is hardly a state secret that the U.S. foreign policy of dominance of world oil would be most greatly facilitated by the "thinning out" of the population of those countries having the greatest oil reserves and a substantial and (at least pre US intervention) well educated and health population:
viz, Iraq and Iran.

Even anyone who might feel hatred towards all Iraqi and Iranian nationals might well reflect that a policy of "thinning out" the populations of two large countries cannot be carried out without the further destruction of the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. Would this then be a country in which we want our own children to live?

It is hardly a state secret that the U.S. foreign policy of dominance of world oil would be most greatly facilitated by the "thinning out" of the population of those countries having the greatest oil reserves and a substantial and (at least pre US intervention) well educated and health population...

It... it isn't?

Sir, the US gets its oil from stable nations with a fat population of wealthy supporters with a vested interest in the status quo. It does not get a reliable supply of cheap oil from nations in civil war, or infested with fanatically anti-American guerillas. This is not a good plan. It's not even a plan. The logic does not stand up.

The quickest, cheapest and easiest way to get oil out of Iraq would have been to quietly normalise relations with Saddam. In case you hadn't noticed, that's pretty much the opposite of what they did.

I think the suggestion that we deal with Saddam as a steady diet is horseshit. We got horseshit now, but that was a pile that was going to get bigger...people piles that is.

Nagy makes a lot of suggestions that they are dying all over the place in Iraq from our atrocities. Tell you what. Jump on a plane, run on down to Baghdad and tell them you are anything from any country and see how long you last. The situation in Iraq is starting to turn. The last couple of days the failure media has been portraying the electrical grid in Iraq. Why? Because the number of deaths is dropping. The suggestion cowboy that American soldiers are out committing atrocities is a crock of shit and it really pisses me off.

I have people on the ground in Iraq that are in my old unit. They would no more commit an act unless fired on than you would. Your suggestion also that we are responsible for all of Iraqs problems and all of the bodies that are there. Uh-huh. Where are they? If there were that many people laying around they would be stacked up like cordwood. The graves registration people are still digging them up in the cemetary's and they have bullet holes thru their skulls. About 400,000.

Sure lets go find a Pol Pot to back and say its for the oil. You dont get it. The world without Saddam is ten times better off than it was when he was here. But you are entitled to your opinion, you have miine.

ST-There is no plan at all. They will go to hydrogen when the last drop of oil is out of the ground and that means after the ANWAR and areas off of Florida are all gone too. Wont happen in my lifetime. Peak oil may be a reality, but the true reality is that to go to something else will put some 1,300,000 workers out of business permanently. THATS the reason we arent going for it.

FRAMED words by Nagy:
lethal impacts of U.S. policy in Iraq - Iraqi killing fields - Even anyone who might feel hatred towards all Iraqi and Iranian nationals ...

Lethal, killing, hatred. Good God, you've lost your mind.
Do your searches on a subject like soldiers donate time to help Iraqi people.

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." - Bush, 5/2/2003

"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." - Cheney, 6/20/2005

"The situation in Iraq is starting to turn." - Kruger, 8/10/2007

Who wants to guess what they'll be saying in 2009?

I am sick and darned tired of hearing about "surges" and "occupations". Let's try that unfortunate word like "truth"- this was all unmitigated, pre-planned, murderous, lying and pseudo-incompetence (stay with me) brought to us by the spineless Congress bowing down to the corporate-oil led Administration of neo-cons. So, no, "losing" guns is no mistake. The neo-cons and their puppeteers wanted to destroy Iraq and have done just that and left a million bodies behind. So, please, no more of this nonsense about "incompetence"- the neo-cons have done just what they set out to do in the "fertile crescent" of humanity. They can't keep up with weapons? Yeah, right. Sickening, inhumane, disgusting.....

Dr. Mike: Not exactly sure at whom your comment is directed, but I'll respond by agreeing that the issue here isn't incompetence. Yes, they are incompetent, but that isn't what went wrong. We shouldn't have been there to begin with, even if we had invaded them "competently." But I think I would disagree about whether the neocons got what they wanted. This has been a disaster for them, too. They pushed this country into the greatest foreign policy debacle in its history and will be tagged for it. They have also crippled US ability to apply military might wherever it pleases, so there is a silver lining in that respect. I witnessed the Vietnam Syndrome and now we will have a relapse in the Iraq Syndrome. Some diseases are good for the world.

Hi Revere,

The comments were not directed at anyone just the idea of the phraseology that gets tossed around. It belittles the human suffering wrought by a bunch of thugs. Most of us cannot fathom the suffering these people have endured.

Now for the disaster that is Iraq: I wish I could find the comments from one of the neocons in which they were glowing about what was going on in Iraq (as well as the one from one of their "puppeteers") and basically saying it was what they wanted/expected. Otherwise, although they lack morals, they have their think tanks and spend a good penny on them for well-written, yet distasteful "analyses". So, with all that, I am to believe that they did not for a second understand the complicated hx of Iraq, the Sunnis, the Shiites, Saddam, and Iran among other issues and what political instability could wrought in the area? No, Revere, I am not buying that American "made-for-TV hologram" for a second. And please remember that the Vietnam Syndrome has played a huge role in the neocons thinking since the end of the war (the Gulf War as well but puhleeze don't get me started on that one).

And I don't know about Iraq stopping the applying of the same Nazi-like, pre-emptive strike tactics elsewhere (I thought Nuremburg called that a war of aggression and illegal). I recommend buckling up for the ride for this one's just getting started.

..Almost forgot- love the blog. Keep up the great work.

Dr. Mike

I believe that Gen. George Patton was one of the first to define political correctness and it is how we have fought wars since WWII. You can no longer just go out an kill your enemies. No you have to apply the US Constitution to combatants, insurgents, people that want you dead. I believe that Iraq will turn out okay but be aware that it took almost 10 years for the US to leave Japan with the majority of our troops. Big reason for that was that we werent sure they could stand on their own against a Russian invasion. They are not ready to stand on their own and we have to stick around now for the duration.

To hell with whatever reason we went in there for, we knew we would be in there after we blew the first chance at Saddam. Some here get the real agenda of whats really happening. Attacks in Pakistan, attacks in Iraq and we leave. They take over Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Jordan and threaten Saudi Arabia. If you cant make a bomb you depose a leader and take what he has. Is anyone blind to why we signed a nuke pact with the Indian govt. this week? The Persian Empire is reborn with a large taste of Saladdin in the mix. Strategically we have to stop them now or we might not get one next time out. Ahmadinijads program is to take over the Persian Gulf by whatever means necessary. Once they close the Straits by nuclear threat we will have to park our asses out at Diego Garcia while we sit around masturbating as to whether going into Iraq was a failed foreign policy or not. Its Teheran and he who holds Baghdad holds the Middle East.

Toss in the Israelis. If they think their security is going to be affected then under the UN Charter they can pre-emptively attack a neighbor. They didnt in the Yom Kippur War and almost lost the farm. They wont chance it again.

WWiV is underway. It just hasnt raised itself to the level of believability for some. Regardless of the rant about the worst foreign policy you might start reading between the lines.

235,000 arms is not something you lose. Its not like your checkbook being unbalanced you knuckleheads. Its not a bookeeping error. They dont WANT to find them. I would bet you that a huge number of that is in the hands of anti-Iranian forces operating in Iran or about to. A US backed insurgency into Iran is what we need and what better way to supply them? I would have thought they would have done them by now but as with all attacks they have to be coordinated. Take time to read and listen to other than the ultra leftist US media. You might find out more than you want to about what is really happening.

Randy: Yes, WWII did highlight the idea of politically (morally) correct. Nuremburg said you can't just go and "kill your enemies," just because some politically correct leader said they were your enemies. The Nazis thought that killing Jews and Communists was killing (exterminating) their enemies. At that time this was politically correct. Now it is politically incorrect. Do you want to turn the clock back? You use the term "politically correct" like a weapon (like "liberal," "communist," "atheist," Jew, Catholic in other people's hands). Maybe what is politically correct is also morally correct. Or doesn't that count?

BTW, Randy, General Petraeus (The White Knight) says that it was a bookkeeping error (clerical error as he put it). Lying to the American people in the name of a foreign policy only you think is correct is politically correct these days, I guess.

And we got dogged because we did something for the first time since the Civil War unilaterally. When in the course of history have we gone to war when the chips were down? The Europeans bitched when we didnt help them with Hitle. We stayed out while millions died...PC. They all bitched when we got the bomb and they didnt have one. They had to kowtow for a while.

Kennedy had the hickories to do it but didnt. Bush likely didnt fabricate the means to the ends but was given wrong informaton by someone that was looking for an end via a means. So what? Tthat happens every day in intel. We didnt know the scope of the Al Sadr people when we got in there, now we do. We adapt, they adapt and eventually one wins. But oh shit we cant bomb them because it just aint right. It might kill a civilian who, who might be a woman who might be pregnant with another someday terrorist. Its about attrition in a war Doc. You keep hitting them, their families, their infrastructure until one of them says I give up. We are just not being allowed to do that. THAT is a travesty. The Brits did it and finally were able to leave some 60 years ago. It stabilized the region for nearly 30 years and then Saddam appeared.

As for morally correct. That too is a term. Its a war and its the second most immoral thing on this planet behind the use of a nuke. But you know what? I would exterminate them all if it got down to losing another soldier in the field or knocking out the Commons in Boston with a chemical attack.

Teheran is the key to this one. But its PC again. Iranian made weapons. Semtek, C4, supplies and we just sit back and say oh well. Your reference to the PC at the time is totally correct. I think its TIME that we take out whole city blocks and in Teheran, much to the dismay of PETA, ACLU, Greenpeace AND of course the French. We are not allowed to fight it as a war. Its like a Newark neighborhood with tanks and HE going off periodically. About the same body count on both sides though. As for lying, come on do you really want to know the truth? If you did its as the man said, "You couldnt handle the truth." I always hear about a plan, this is running a playbook already. Nervous and jerky on the ground but I see a bad future for our friends the Iranians. You know the guys who spout shit out on the TV and radio everyday about killing Americans, Brits, Aussies, and perpetually the Jews. I guess they think thats politically correct huh? Lets just give them a big hug and send them some more money.

I was in and I bet I got the truth less than 50% of the time. I could always tell when they were lying or passing on a lie. It was about the time they couldnt answer an legitimate question and one that made sense. This war takes out Teheran before the end of next year or more likely just about mid October when it gets cool enough for operations. If they dont then we will be announcing the departure of all US troops about that time. Either way we lose in all reality. But it does perpetuate the system that we enjoy now doesnt it?

Yeah, that trip to Iraq was one hell of a great idea, all right. Only cost an estimated total of$60,000,000,000.00; and besides, Iraqi oil revenues would cover that pittance. No sweat. Over in a couple of months. Picnic. Greeted with flowers. You could almost picture a Baghdad Club Med...right next to the Green Zone.

And let's alter the language, so that every enlistee we ship over there is automatically designated a "hero." Let's not show the bodies being shipped back home, though. Let's show some sensitivity toward those families. Let's just make their children "disappear," when an IED blows the "heroes" into little bitty pieces. Saw on the news, yesterday, that the courageous Mormon missionary, Willard Romney, says it's perfectly reasonable for his five adult male children to fully support this war -- just as he does -- while ensuring that they don't get blown to little tiny pieces...by actually participating in it. He honors the contribution that his five sons make, in their own small way. They're doing their part by piloting the Romney bus through the treacherous rural roads of Iowa. Helping to steer olf Willard right into the White House. HOOAHHHHH!!! Anybody seen any IED's in Iowa, lately? Guess this qualifies the five Romney progeny as "heroes," too. No? Willard obviously thinks so.

What? Perhaps you could be a little more specific. 60 billion, ah they do now add the normal budget in now when it sounds good for the agenda...... I guess it all depends whether you want the lights on or runaway inflation when oil would rise to above 100 bucks a barrel. Its economic war Dylan, we got Saddam in the deal. Now we likely get Teheran and we go home after that. But, have to make sure this time there is someone to ascend to the thrones of both that can hold onto the areas so that we dont have an Al-Sadr brigade taking over.

Sorry, I wish we were outta there but we did this one on the cheap on the front end and didnt want to kill anyone like their military. Thats the PC for you. Its rife within the society and if it doesnt change someone worse than GWB is going to take hold. I wouldnt have lost a single soldier I didnt have to. Our own commanders were asking for us to stop because it was a slaughter. I said BS to that. The can always raise the white flag. Attrition, the single largest resolver of wars. Take away their boots, food, people, supplies, ammo and then if they want to hit you with sticks then maybe they are so committed you should leave. We aint there yet.

LOL. We did this on the cheap? Wow. A trillion dollars is cheap? You really do want to bankrupt us, Randy. And you are succeeding. I'd rather have UHC.

GWB et al: takes away our civic rights, spies and imprisons our own people in foreign camps, lies to the public on every matter of policy for nearly eight straight years, encourages a hemorrhaging economy based on credit and debt, promotes fascism in the guise of Christianity by assaulting reason and stifling science, alienates our former friends and allies with declarations of war on our former allies of Iraq and Afghanistan, and exploits public trust and money for personal gain; America should not wave a white flag... but you are completely correct, Mr. Kruger, in that we aint there yet.

As you are quite sincere about invading Iran, Mr. Kruger, how exactly would you do it? What propaganda would you use to drum up support from Americans suffering from two costly, unpopular wars? Who would you fire or replace in our Leftists media who would be loyal to your agenda and not do real journalism? Where would you deploy troops from and by how many months would you extend their tours of duty? If necessary, would you be willing to fabricate myths and perpetuate them with blind faith, decrying dissenters as un-American and as aiding the enemy? And lastly, after invading Teheran and subsequently overthrowing the Iranian government, what strategy would you use to quell unpopular Iranian retaliation from the American liberation forces? How many nuclear weapons would you drop on Iran and if they did the same to us, how would you tell the moral difference? These are fair questions to ask of someone who is adamantly, positively convinced that Iran is a serious threat to the US (just like Saddam with his WMD's or Afghanistan with its, uh, terrorists!).

Randy: Sixty-billion was the figure being tossed around before the fucking geniuses in this Administration actually began "Shock and Awe;" if you care to remember that far back. The figure preceeded the equally optomistic "Mission Accomplished;" I'm certain you remember that little production number. C-in-C rides shotgun in a fighter aircraft...very dramatic...drops out of the sky to set down (to a tumultuous welcome) on the deck of a carrier that's about fifteen feet from docking? Announces "major combat in Iraq" concluded. That's about the time that the first one or two percent of the trillion bucks that revere cites had already been spent.

Iraq is stuck to us like a fucking barnacle, now. The various forces in Iraq figured out, long ago, what this gig is about. And what's in it for them. They're smarter than those hopeless asswipes in Washington, by a country mile. We're paying for "everything," even the fucking insurgencies. We've got a mindless motherfucker in the White House who just about has this country on life support; while he drunkenly packs everything in sight up, and heads for the door. He can leave; we can't. Until we can figure out how to remove many thousands of "American guest workers," and 160,000 American military personnel. Ohhhh, shit...I forgot. We have to make it look like we actually left a stable, sovereign government in place there, too. That's turning out to be inonvenient as hell. We're fucked. Somebody -- a lot of somebodies, actually -- deserves to be in prison, over this debacle.