Stilgherrian » iraq

Page 161

Stilgherrian — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:15:32 +0000

I noticed this blogging meme over at Quatrefoil’s place and thought I’d give it a try. The results are surprising.

Grab the nearest book.
Open it to page 161.
Find the fifth sentence.
Post the text of the sentence in your journal along with these instructions.
Don’t search around and look for the coolest book you can find. Use what’s actually next to you.

And the sentence is:

“Sensitive site exploitation will continue.”

That sentence doesn’t make a lot of sense by itself, but the next one adds all the context you need:

So far there had been no WMD stockpiles found.

The book is State of Denial: Bush At War, Part III by investigative journalist Bob Woodward. It’s been months since I read it but for some reason it’s still on my desk.

This afternoon the BBC reports that unnamed “US officials” have evidence that North Korea was helping Syria build a nuclear reactor. Here we go again. I think I might listen to some classic Detroit techno instead.

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

Lesson from Iraq: don’t ignore international law

Stilgherrian — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 09:21:23 +0000

Of all the writing about the 5th anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq, one of the more interesting pieces is by Mary Ellen O’Connell (pictured) of Notre Dame Law School. In Learning from the Iraq War: The Wisdom of International Law, she argues that the most tangible lesson is that the US ignores international law at its peril.

Going into Iraq, we ignored the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force except in self-defense or with Security Council authorization. Once in Iraq, we ignored the Hague Regulations, requiring us to put a stop to looting and to make only necessary changes to local law and government. We ignored the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit secret detention and abuse of prisoners of the kind we saw at Abu Ghraib.

The talk on Iraq is all about what went wrong, whether the surge is working, and when we can get out. We hear virtually nothing about international law and look set to repeat our mistakes. Violating the law has cost our nation and Iraq dearly. It has denied us the guidance of rules based on long experience and moral consensus. We have lost standing in the world, a literal fortune, and precious lives. Rather than internalizing the lesson of law violation in Iraq, we continue to defy the law in serious and self-destructive ways.

At some point, sooner or later, America needs to understand that international law does indeed apply to everyone — including America. Otherwise any US action against any other nation breaking the law is nothing but hypocrisy. (Hat-tip to Blog Them Out of the Stone Age.)

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

67 Australian SAS captured airbase defended by 1000

Stilgherrian — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:12:25 +0000

Why do we never hear about the real work of the Australian military overseas? I’ve written about this before, but I’ve just stumbled across another example. We should have heard about this!

According to a post at the Iran Defence Forum, where I snaffled the photo, 67 Australian SAS troopers captured an Iraqi airfield defended by over 1000 troops.

The Australian SAS captured an Iraqi airfield during the invasion with over 60 intact aircraft camouflaged and buried.

A MiG-25 Foxbat fighter was amongst the captured aircraft, and apparently it’s on its way to Perth to be displayed at the SAS base there.

As I said last time, surely you, dear Department of Defence, can tell enough of the story to inspire the kiddies without “revealing operational secrets”. Hell, I’d love to record this kind of oral history! You know where to find me.

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

The Straw Man and the Hallucinating Goldfish

Stilgherrian — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:10:18 +0000

Scientific American explains two media manipulation techniques, the “straw man” and the “weak man”. Know how to spot them and help fight the Hallucinating Goldfish.

In Getting Duped: How the Media Messes with Your Mind, Yvonne Raley and Robert Talisse write:

One common method of spinning information is the so-called straw man argument. In this tactic, a person summarizes the opposition’s position inaccurately so as to weaken it and then refutes that inaccurate rendition. In a November 2005 speech, for example, President George W Bush responded to questions about pulling troops out of Iraq by saying, “We’ve heard some people say, pull them out right now. That’s a huge mistake. It’d be a terrible mistake. It sends a bad message to our troops, and it sends a bad message to our enemy, and it sends a bad message to the Iraqis.” The statement that unnamed “people” are advocating a troop withdrawal from Iraq “right now” is a straw man, because it exaggerates the opposing viewpoint. Not even the most stalwart Bush adversaries backed an immediate troop withdrawal. Most proposed that the soldiers be sent home over several months, a more reasonable and persuasive plan that Bush undercut with his straw man.

The Weak Man tactic is a twist on this…

As Talisse, co-authors of the 2006 paper which coined the term, explains:

[A] person sets up the opposition’s weakest (or one of its weakest) arguments or proponents for attack, as opposed to misstating a rival’s position as the straw man argument does. In a July 2007 edition of Talking Points, Bill O’Reilly took on a claim by the New York Times that we had lost the war in Iraq by saying that “the New York Times declared defeat in Iraq Sunday on its editorial page, and there’s no question the antiwar movement has momentum.” (The editorial actually said that “some opponents of the Iraq war are toying with the idea of American defeat,” but let us assume that O’Reilly’s characterization was correct.)

O’Reilly then offered a weak man explanation for the purported defeat: “The truth is the Iraqi government and many of its citizens are simply not doing enough to defeat the terrorists and corruption. The USA can’t control that country. No nation could… Unfortunately, the Iraqi failure to help themselves has come true.” Although Iraq’s failure to aid in fighting terrorism and corruption could be why we are losing the war, the troubles in Iraq could also stem from a host of logistical reasons, some of which may shed a negative light on the current administration. O’Reilly, however, kept any discussion of these reasons offstage, suppressing the various other possible — and possibly more likely — reasons for “defeat” in Iraq. Meanwhile his claims that the “USA can’t control that country” and that “no nation could” deflected blame from the US government.

Hat-tip to 3 quarks daily.

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

Who won the Iraq War?

Stilgherrian — Sat, 12 May 2007 06:06:59 +0000

“A funny thing happened on the floor of the [US] Senate last week,” says Gary Brecher (pictured left). “Somebody asked a serious question: ‘If the war in Iraq is lost, then who won?’.” The brief answer is “Iran in the short run, China and India in the long run.” Read the full post for Brecher’s observations and reasoning. [Thanks to Blog Them Out of the Stone Age for the tip.]

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

Latest Apple products, yes

Stilgherrian — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:05:20 +0000

I thought this amusing video was going to be another send-up like the iPhone parodies I posted recently, but it’s actually something else again.

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

Leaked “friendly fire” video

Stilgherrian — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:36:19 +0000

In 2003, British solider Lance-Corporal Matty Hull was killed in Iraq and a colleague injured when an American A-10 aircraft opened fire on his vehicle. The cockpit video from the A-10 was leaked, and the transcript has been published.

I watched the video.

I cried.