tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post3199065259496556310..comments2024-03-19T01:48:39.709+00:00Comments on Power and Control: The Balance SheetM. Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09508934110558197375noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post-83498409540216690382007-05-03T02:36:00.000+00:002007-05-03T02:36:00.000+00:00Michael Yon was in Cambodia a year or so ago and d...Michael Yon was in Cambodia a year or so ago and did a post or 2 on the killing fields.Doughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16770268554450465514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post-12856014463373726642007-05-02T01:56:00.000+00:002007-05-02T01:56:00.000+00:00I find it strange that so many want to keep on goi...I find it strange that so many want to keep on going on about the political reasons for the war... and ignore the fact that there are other reasons beyond those mentioned by 'either side'.<BR/><BR/>First is accountable Nation States. That is something that we are currently lacking in that region and, unfortunately, in many other areas of the globe, like Africa. The basis for any 'international law' is just that accountability - without it you do not *get* any 'international law'. I find it very strange that those very same individuals that wish to cite this lovely and nebulous 'international law' have very few clues <A HREF="http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2007/03/international-lawlessness-begins-at.html" REL="nofollow">about what it *is*</A>. Strangely enough it is NOT a body of work that all Nations are held accountable to, has no means or method of judicial oversight and has no means to enforce itself. The only thing 'international law' is, is Treaties between Nation States. A system of reciprocity, accountability and being held to agreements by any and all means between Nations. That starts with diplomacy and ends with a barrel of a gun.<BR/><BR/>Second, going with the first, is to show that we Mean What We Say when we make an international agreement. In this case the ceasefire brokered with Saddam. He broke that so many times, that one lost count with fingers and toes by the third year, when all he needed to do was demonstrate the destruction of his WMD and long-range missile *programs*, hand over some kidnapees from Kuwait, turn over a few Coalition Armed Forces personnel, and generally pay the price for his misdeeds. He *agreed* to that! Signed up for it and shook hands all around. Smiled, even. Then proceeded to do everything he could to get out of those obligations for over a DECADE. If the US does not hold *itself* to such agreements, then why, on Earth, have we any right to expect anyone else to do so? This *doing nothing and complaining* was not upholding 'international law' but destroying it via erosion at its basis. I have yet to hear from *any* war detractor exactly *how* more inspections were going to *prove* anything, when the dictator had orders out to hide, obfuscate, distract and outright deny entry to places where he was hiding things. Been there, done that for a decade and it did not work. Even Joe Biden pointed out the fact that Saddam had equipment, stocks, stores, materials, programs and scientists still working on the stuff that was *documented* right after the war and never, not once, was it all accounted for under international scrutiny as was put forth in the ceasefire. Not even most of it. Not even a plurality of it.<BR/><BR/>Third, the <A HREF="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107" REL="nofollow">Congressional Authorization</A> which went much, much, much farther than anything the President asked for and, for those who haven't read it, declared a virtual war on terrorism. al Qaida is mentioned once, in passing, and International Terrorists are mentioned multiple times. Saddam had connections to: Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PLO, Jemaa Islamiya, various 'Red' groups in Europe, and helped from up Ansar al-Islam against the Kurds. Carlos the Jackal spent some lovely time in Baghdad in the late 1970's. Abu Nidal was in Baghdad up to 2002 when he, conveniently, died there recovering from surgery. The possibly late al Masri was there before the war as was Zarqawi. Not *just* al Qaeda, but a whole slew of people and organizations that were given training, arms, safe haven and supplies from Iraq and Congress considered that to be a non-starter in the modern world of the 21st century. Doing *nothing* was not stopping that.<BR/><BR/>We have had lots of *doing nothing* and when nothing is done, then nothing is, exactly, what gets done. If you want robust 'international law', then the Congressional support for Treaties made via the UN should be of paramount interest to you. Enforcement of them even *better* as they all have warnings and actual citations that action on the enforcement front will be taken for non-compliance. That non-compliance is the breaking of a ceasefire: making war.<BR/><BR/>I would have preferred that the very *first* breaking of the ceasefire, about two or three months after it was *signed* had been addressed with a protection zone for the southern Shia population so that they would not suffer 300,000 dead. While Saddam did the killing it is only through the neglect of our responsiblities that allowed it. The ongoing neglect by the next President made things worse, year on year, and eroded support of this thing known as 'international law'. Strange that the supporters of that concept never mention that.<BR/><BR/>I don't mind playing the logic games and twisty evidence games that so many trot out time and again. My stance has been exactly the same since 1991 when it would have been cheaper to finish the job. As <A HREF="http://thejacksonianparty.blogspot.com/2007/04/10-years-that-changed-path-of-america.html" REL="nofollow">I look back on history</A> it would have been a bit more expensive in 1917, but if we had paid the price we might have *stopped* Britain and France from doing their Imperialism Carve-Up of the Middle East and gotten the more ethnically aligned States that Woodrow Wilson had wanted. Unfortunately he did not have the guts to put it on the line when it counted and so got no say in those post-war treaties.<BR/><BR/>Our parents, grand-parents and great-grandparents failed us.<BR/><BR/>Against this enemy that has no Nation, wears no uniform, flies no flag and sets down to protect no People, we must remove its training and support from every damned Nation that we can. That is not warmongering: that is survival instinct. The best way to get there is by accountable agreements between Nations with reciprocity and holding tightly and strictly to them. No leeway for laxness, for bleeding hearts, for pity. That has failed us for going on 9 decades now. It continues to fail us. That is the definition of stupid: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.<BR/><BR/>Our enemies are vicious, fantasy oriented, fanatical, and while they may be a bit blind to their defects they are not stupid. Damn well trained. We should know. Some of them have gone to Western Universities and gotten degrees. These are not the poor nor downtrodden of the Earth: these are the well groomed, sophisticated and fanatical backers of Empire.<BR/><BR/>And the one thing they do not do is hold to any agreements.<BR/><BR/>There is a word for such: barbarians.<BR/><BR/>If you quaver at the downpayment on their butchers bill now, realize it is only on the interest we are paying. They are coming for us and have demonstrated time and again they will not stop. We must fight harder, smarter and use all the tools available to us. If we don't, we are stupid and deserve the fate we will get.A Jacksonianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07607888697879327120noreply@blogger.com