Civil War?

There has been a lot of talk recently regarding Iraq, and whether or not the country has fallen into a civil war. Many analysts are claiming that it has, and the Bush administration is insisting that this is anything but a civil war. In fact they have been adamant in trying to steer people away from any mention of such a thing.

The Bush Administration is desperate to avoid the mention of civil war, because they know that if it becomes recognized as such by the American People, all hope of maintaining any support for the war will vanish. It will also be the ultimate indication of failure for their policies. We invaded Iraq because of WMD, but when they didn't appear the Administration insisted that it was ok because we were bringing democracy to Iraq. If all we end up bringing them is a civil war, then they have ultimately wasted thousands of lives and billions of dollars on a futile effort.

So is it a civil war? I guess it depends on your definition. To the Bush administration it seems that they are only going to concede civil war if the troops end up lining up on a battlefield across from each other, all wearing uniforms and then start firing at each other. While this is of course the popular image of the U.S. Civil War, it is also an obsolete form of warfare. No one fights that way anymore.

The most recent civil wars we have had have been in places like Sudan, Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. These civil wars have all been defined by ethnic violence, mass killings, terror attacks, and guerilla tactics. They have not been fought on a U.S. civil war battlefield. In the context of these modern civil wars, the current conflict in Iraq is easily identified as a civil war. We have seen ethnic violence, mass killings, terror attacks and guerilla tactics. Neither side in the civil war is going to put on uniforms and start marching up and down the fields of Baghdad. That is not how wars are won.

The Bush Administration was still living in the Cold War when we invaded Iraq. They expected a conventional battle, and instead the Iraqis fell into the new type of war that was perfected by the Afghanistanis during their war with Russia. Now the Administration is again standing by outdated definitions of warfare, and they are looking increasingly out of touch.

We are losing dozens of people every day in Iraq. Today there were at least 29 killed, yesterday almost 40. Every day is the same. Bodies being found after execution, mass killings, bombings and terror. These attacks are no longer directed at the U.S., they are Sunni's attacking Shiites, and Shiites attacking Sunnis, and Kurds attacking everyone else. As former Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi recently said, "If this is not civil war, I don't know what is."

One thing we all need to remember, is these people who are dying would all likely be alive today if it wasn't for our wonderful President. We invaded Iraq without provocation or evidence of threat, and we chose to insert ourselves into this situation. It was purely a war of choice. While these people might have lived restricted lives under Saddam, at least most of them would have been alive. Saddam was an evil tyrant, and needed to go. However was the best way to do that invading the country, spending billions of dollars, sacrificing thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and bringing their country to destruction?

It is like the famous quote from a Vietnam War veteran. "We had to destroy the village to save it." What a mad world we live in.

Wow, two posts in one day!

I just posted another item this morning, but I had to post this one as well. It is just too important.

Saddam's trial in Iraq is continuing, and for those who haven't been following, he is currently being tried for ordering the killing of around 150 villagers (men women and children) in a village that was the home of some people who attempted an assassination on Saddam. The killing was ordered in retaliation for the failed assassination attempt.

Well the breakthrough today was that Saddam admitted that he ordered the retaliatory attack. His defense is basically that he didn't break any laws, because he was the President and he made the laws. The prosecution has claimed that even if this is true, he is still guilty under international laws.

Hmmm... Does this sound familiar to anyone? Maybe for example the way that Bush feels that it doesn't make him a lawbreaker if he decides that laws are inconvenient and decides to simple go around them. Kind of like the torture of prisoners, or the wiretapping of U.S. residents and citizens, or ignoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty by working with India on nuclear energy, or ignoring the Geneva Convention etc etc. Bush always excuses this breaking of treaties and laws by arguing that he is the President, and that his favorite "Unitary President" doctrine allows him to basically be above the law.

So the bottom line here is that Saddam and Bush are making the same argument. They are both saying that the fact that they are President allows them to not be shackled by laws in any normal sense. Simply by being President, they can do whatever they want and it is legal. Nixon tried this too, when he declared that something can't be illegal if the President is doing it.

The irony of course is that we accept (or at least a lot of us do) this argument from Bush, but we don't accept it from Saddam. In truth we should either accept the argument from Saddam and let him go, or we should put Bush on trial for breaking the law. We can't do both.

Now before anyone starts yelling at me for equating Saddam with Bush, please remember that Bush has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, all of whom wouldn't have been dead without his decision to invade Iraq. That decision was illegal, as under International Law you can only attack another country in defense or if you receive U.N. sanction, and we qualify for neither, making Bush a war criminal responsible for untold deaths. He also heads a government that has made torture a routine part of its dealings with prisoners, as well as ignorning the rights of prisoners of war under the geneva conventions. The only real difference between Saddam and Bush is that Saddam killed and tortured his own people, and Bush kills and tortures others. They both have excuses for why they do it.

India and Non-Proliferation

Once again the big story today is the increase of violence in Iraq, with another 39 people killed, and the country clearly headed for Civil War. But again, I want to talk about something else that otherwise could slip through the cracks.

Yesterday Bush was in New Delhi, and he signed an agreement with India that will allow the U.S. to share nuclear technology and fuel with India. This is a dangerous agreement.

Why is that? Not because I don't trust the Indians and believe that this could assist them in their nuclear weapons, although that is likely a result. The main reason is because this is simply another example of Bush having no respect for international law.

There is a treaty, which the United States is a signatory to, called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. Basically this treaty declares that no signatory can develop nuclear bombs, but in return for giving up their right to nuclear bombs they have the right to develop civilian nuclear energy projects. The treaty also declares that those signatories that already have nuclear weapons should work towards reducing them.

Well India never signed the treaty. The United States did, so under international law we are required to allow signatories to develop civilian nuclear programs, but to work towards stopping those countries that are not signatories. India not only didn't sign the treaty, but they have in the meantime developed nuclear weapons. On the other hand, Iran, one of the "axis of evil", actually did sign the treaty. Part of the reason we have concerns with them now is that we believe they are breaking the portion of the treaty that says they cannot build nuclear weapons.

What does all this mean? Well how can we stand up and say we are going to help the Indians develop civilian nuclear energy, when they aren't even signatories to the treaty, and have broken even the tenets of the treaty by developing nuclear weapons? How can we then turn around and refuse to assist Iran in developing their civilian nuclear facilities when they are signatories? It puts us in an incredibly difficult position, and is just dangerous. What we are showing the world is that you are better off not being a part of the treaty, develop nuclear weapons, and then we will come in and help you develop your civilian nuclear program anyway. However if you do stick with the treaty and we don't like you then you will be punished anyway.

I think Bush even recognizes this dilemma, when you consider this quote from him:

“What this agreement says is — things change, times change, that leadership can make a difference. ... So I’m trying to think differently, not stay stuck in the past,”

What this quote points out is that Bush is admitting that he holds international treaties as unimportant when "times change". This is but another example to add to the list of treaties and laws that Bush declares "quaint" and that no longer need to be followed, such as the U.S. ban on torture, the Geneva Conventions, the laws protecting U.S. citizens from wire taps etc. Bush has no respect at all for any law or treaty if he feels it is inconvenient.

There is a name for that, and it is Dictatorship. Bush feels he is above the law and nothing should be able to stop him from doing what he wants. This is extremely dangerous.

Anyway, here is a link!