Tim Blair

I'd say Iraq will do just as well as the west, since we are trying to create it in our own image. Have you already forgotten this demonstration of "freedom of expression"?:
Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya banned

Give it time.

Where is Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya banned in the West?

Oh, you want to argue that the West does similar things. I'll help - Susan Sarandon, Mike Farrell, and others think that their views/opinions are being suppressed. (The cited suppression consists of some folks criticising said views/opinions.) How do I know this secret - they mentioned it in a TV/major newspaper interviews discussing said suppressed views/opinions....

Andy,
1. The west is bigger than the U.S.
2. Freedom of expression can be and is curtailed through many means, anything from criminal misdemeanour and vilification laws to self censorship
3. I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories.
4. I saw Thelma and Louise, who on earth is Mike Farrell
5. That the Iraqi's enjoy more freedom of expression now than under Hussein is self evident. I would still question whether they, or anyone enjoys this with 'no limits'

> 1. The west is bigger than the U.S.

True, but it doesn't answer my question. Where in the West is Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya banned? I ask because I'm looking to fill in the {blank} in "It's a failure; it's been 5 months and Iraq only has as much freedom of the press as {blank}."

> That the Iraqi's enjoy more freedom of expression now than under Hussein is self evident. I would still question whether they, or anyone enjoys this with 'no limits'

Translation "I don't have anything substantively negative to say, so I'll try to cast this in the worst light possible.

Here are more fill in the {blank}s.
(1) I want Iraq to go badly because that will hurt {blank}.
(2) I want Iraq to go badly because that will help {blank}.

Okay, I'd agree that Iraq has more freedom of speech now then before. It's hardly the wonderland you describe -- police are pounding in doors in the middle of the night, locking up people without charges and without indictments and holding them without any intention of putting them on trial. But its the lack of government that is the problem. The daily terrorist attacks, the lack of electricity or clean water, the fact that women cannot walk the streets without armed guards, etc. For the sake of Iraq, I hope these problems will be temporary

But from my perspective, as an American, I look at this war from strictly personal terms. Would I have been willing to lose my eye, arm, leg or life to achieve America's objectives in this war? We didn't intervene to stop a genocide, which is a clean, militarily acheivable objective. And we didn't go in to provide freedom of the press to Iraq. As much as I respect that freedom and wish it for all, it is not worth providing to Iraq at the cost of 360 americans (so far) and the spending of $250 billion American dollars. There were "cheaper" ways to work towards that objective, such as spending the diplomatic capital to get the rest of the world behind you to chip in money and soldiers before embarking on such a high minded, altruistic task.

Of course, we didn't really go there for altruism. And we didn't really go there to find weapons that don't exit. We went there to show the world that we were the toughest son of the bitch on the block, and on that score we failed miserably. We look a lot weaker now than in March.

pj, I think your America is on a different planet from my America.

in what way Fred, you'd literally give your right arm for some possibility of increasing freedom in Iraq?

As I said, I think war on "humanitarian" grounds has to have very discrete objectives. In Kosovo, it was to stop a murderous onslaught of the local people, and the US had an international coalition sharing the burdens. And, extraordinary care was taken to protect American forces. In Iraq, I'm not sure what the heck the objectives are, and I sure wouldn't be willing to die for them.

An interesting blog from a young woman in Baghdad.

PJ - Just to keep in mind, we did NOT have an "international coalition" in Kosovo.... we had a "US-European coalition", decidedly NOT approved by the UN. The Russians were outraged (they vetoed), the Chinese were surrounding our enmbassy in fury, the Latin Americans and others were either disapproving or categorically out of the picture. Kosovo was all US and Europe.

And THAT is what is, to many Americans like myself, doubly infuriatiing. Because it says something loudly and clearly. Namely, that when the fascist knife is at EUROPE's throat, when it is EUROPE that is in danger of destabilization, and when the UN says "NO, we will NOT support your intervention" (they did, remember? Check the record), well, it's "cast the UN aside and everyone to the trenches. And thanks America, for doing the heavy lifting on our behalf... AGAIN."

Now the knife is at someone else's throat, it's the US's butt hanging out in the wind of the Gulf, our people dead in our streets at the hand of Arab fascism, Europe is far away... and guess what. Their whole attitude toward confronting true and genuine fascism undergoes a 180 degree turn. "What?? How dare you! How immoral!"

So I am not impressed with the "international" nature of our Kosovo effort, which was the FIRST violation of the treaty of Westphalia (i.e. invasion based on the purely internal events of another nation and the ostensible threat to others it represented). Bush's actions were the SECOND... a fact convienently ignored by virtually all.

I supported the Kosovo operation, certainly even more in hindsight. (All the more reason to support this one.) It is the disgusting hypocricy on the part of many in Europe in particular that outrages me.

"...who on earth is Mike Farrell"

Saint, he's most famous as "the guy who's not Trapper John." In other words, an actor who played a character in the TV series "M.A.S.H.."

"In Kosovo, it was to stop a murderous onslaught of the local people, and the US had an international coalition sharing the burdens."

I think you`ll find that the US military forces were doing 80pc of the hard work, and most of the rest by the UK and Canada. Europe was there mostly for show, a bit like France been one of the "victors" in WW2

> But its the lack of government that is the problem. The daily terrorist attacks, the lack of electricity or clean water, the fact that women cannot walk the streets without armed guards, etc. For the sake of Iraq, I hope these problems will be temporary

Actually, "lack of govt" is not the problem, at least it isn't the cause of these problems.

General lawlessness demonstrates that Iraqis do not have a civil society. For all the ranting about "cradle of civilization", they haven't managed to keep up.

The infrastructure attacks are a test that the Iraqi people are failing. Most children eventually figure out that letting someone else piss in their Cherios isn't in their interest.

> There were "cheaper" ways to work towards that objective, such as spending the diplomatic capital to get the rest of the world behind you to chip in money and soldiers before embarking on such a high minded, altruistic task.

Actually, there aren't any other ways, let alone cheaper ones. The rest of the world was perfectly happy with things as they were.

Note also that there aren't any other military forces capable of doing the work, so even if other countries had approved, their approval wouldn't have provided any significant benefit.

No executions, no torture, no political prisoners. Satellite dishes, newspapers, political parties. Boy, being crushed under the jackboot of American Imperialism just ain't what it used to be. Heh.

"We went there to show the world that we were the toughest son of the bitch on the block, and on that score we failed miserably. We look a lot weaker now than in March."

OK, pj, even were your reasons for why we went in true, how does it follow that we look weaker? Granting all your hypotheses, the US showed that, militarily, we could beat the crap of Iraq's armed forces extremely quickly, and with low casualities. On the other hand, granting your position, the US may not be able to easily rebuild a country that's been oppressed for many years.

Somehow, I think that prospective enemies are much more afraid about the already demonstrated military prowess. We'll even grant your (incorrect) statement that the US lacked allies. Even so, doesn't it demonstrate even more being the "toughest son of a bitch on the block" to undertake a successful military action with fewer allies, and against world opposition?

The logical end of your view, pj, is that the US should have gone in, without allies at all, and blown the crap out of Iraq, just to prove a point, and then not rebuilt it at all. That's what the US would have done if it merely wanted to appear to be the "toughest SOB on the block."

I have to say, pj, that I think that your suggestions are completely wrong, and that international efforts would not have led to more freedom for Iraqis at all. But, there's no pleasing you Buchananite isolationists, is there?

yeah but!!! the WEST told lies to achieve it!! NYA NYA!

You've got to bunch them to kill enough to make much difference. But maybe we should just haul ass and then conquer the place again next year for the helluvit.

The general objective should be to destroy militant Islam in all its manifestations. Simple really, even though the western world is up to its collective ass in idiots who don't get it.

pj:

"In Kosovo... the US had an international coalition sharing the burdens."

Let's see, the Kosovo air campaign was supported by NATO and 3 members of the UN Security Counsel (US, Britan & France) and opposed by 2 (Russia, China), meaning it did not have the support of the UN. The Iraqi war was supported by NATO and 2 members of the UN Security Counsel (US & Britan) and opposed by 3 (France, Russia & China), meaning it did not have the support of the UN.

Wow, I guess "multilateral" really DOES mean doing exactly what France wants!

btw: WE'RE STILL IN KOSOVO AND IT'S BEEN ALMOST 5 YEARS! Where's our exit strategy? Quagmire! Quagmire!

Sean

I know you're not this dense.

1. Kosovo is no more a quagmire than Kuwait. We haven't lost any American soldiers in Kosovo. Yes, we are still there in a peacekeeping role, but we are quite effectively keeping the peace. And, more importantly, we are not doing it alone, but represent just a fraction of the forces on the ground.

2. Bush should know what an effective international coalition looks like. His Dad made money on the first Gulf War because we got so many financial contributions from other countries. This war is far, far different.

2. You don't need UN approval to be an effective multilateral force. In Kosovo, we didn't get the security counsel to agree because Russia was against it. But we did get real live military support from our other allies, who not only have played equal roles in the peacekeeping, but have shared the cost.

3. Afghanistan is another example of a real multilateral coalition. So Team Bush knows what one looks like.

4. NATO did not support the Iraq war. In fact, it took tremendous pressure just to get NATO to agree to defend Turkey if it was attacked as a result of the war.

"People can demonstrate freely -- and do. "

That's right! by shooting US soldiers in the head!

HISTORY 101 for you guys:
Q. What happens when you invade a country, dickheads?
A. You get shot at!

Usually not by a tiny, isolated minority though fucker.