The Consequences of War

In defending the war, its proponents often fall back on certain “truths” when they get backed into a corner by those pointing to worsening conditions on the ground. They claim that as bad as things may seem, at least the Iraqis have been liberated from the oppressive tyrant who massacred thousands of their countrymen and women over the past 20 or so years. Their lives are now blessed by the liberties we have helped provide for them. Don’t you remember the ink-stained fingers held high in triumph and in defiance to the terrorists? That would have never been possible under Saddam.

While there have been significant, even historic, events that have inspired us and given us hope that this war has been worthwhile and just, its implications are far too significant to let that assertion go unquestioned. Just ask yourself, is the life of the average Iraqi better off today than it was prior to the U.S. invasion in March of 2003?

Since that invasion, reports indicate that up to 1.6 million Iraqis have fled the country with their families because they’ve found the growing violence and instability unbearable. That number is increasing every day with most families (an estimated 100,000 per month) settling in Jordan and Syria, and others in Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, various Gulf States and Europe.

As alarming as that number may be, what’s equally alarming is that a good portion of those fleeing the country are the very people needed most in the rebuilding of a prosperous and tolerant Iraqi society. Instead of serving as high priority targets for would-be kidnappers seeking a high ransom (a reported $36 million a year industry), approximately 40 percent of Iraqi professionals, including doctors and teachers, are fleeing the war-torn country in increasing numbers. In addition, because they’ve been increasingly targeted by death squads, an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 Iraqi Christians have now fled the country.

There is also a refugee crisis within Iraq. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees now estimates that more than 1.5 million Iraqis are internally displaced, nearly half a million since February. The International Organization for Migration estimates that 9,000 Iraqis are being driven out of their homes each and every week, many to the relative security of northern Iraq.

Since the onset of the war, estimates of Iraqi civilian fatalities range from 40,000 to several hundred thousand. As violence has raged increasingly throughout the year, more and more corpses of men, women, and children have been discovered each day. Many are simply dumped in groups by sectarian death squads along roadsides or in rivers, and most are barely distinguishable because of the acid burns, bullet holes, or electric drill holes that cover their bodies. In Baghdad, a recent estimate categorized sixty-five percent of all deaths as unidentified corpses. Overall, more Iraqi civilians were killed during last month than in any other month since the invasion. According to a U.N. report, 3,709 Iraqis were killed, up slightly from the previous high in July, and an increase of about 11 percent from the number in September.

While we have rough estimates of the number of Iraqis killed each month, the extent of these numbers is difficult to determine, partially because the Iraqi government is taking steps to restrict the release of these figures. What we do know is that city morgues across Iraq have taken steps to expand their capacities because they can no longer accommodate for the growing number of corpses. In some cases, bodies are even being turned away. In other cases, bodies are buried in unmarked graves without their families being able to claim them, simply because they are too afraid to collect them. When it’s deemed safe enough, these families bribe cemetery workers to dig up the remains of their loved ones so they might have a proper burial.

If you’re a Sunni victim, there’s an increasing likelihood that you will meet a similar fate even if you make it to an Iraqi hospital for treatment. Moqtada al-Sadr allies in the Iraqi Health Ministry will see to that. The systematic killing of Sunni patients in hospitals in Baghdad and Karbala has almost become common-place.

And it keeps getting worse…. This past Thursday, bombings in Sadr City killed more than 200. The New York Times reports:

Since those attacks, quasi-armies of residents in mixed and majority-Sunni Arab neighborhoods have formed to protect their streets. Sunni Web sites are offering advice on how to kill Shiite militiamen. College students and executives pace at their homes, clutching rifles and handguns around the clock. Iraqis are posting pleas on Internet message boards to buy extra ammunition and weapons.

Despite a government-imposed curfew, Iraqis described Shiite militiamen murdering Sunnis at checkpoints, controlling neighborhoods with impunity and conspiring with Iraq's majority-Shiite police force, which the Interior Ministry controls. Other Iraqis spoke of mortar shells raining on their mosques and gun battles outside their houses, deepening their mistrust of Iraq's security forces and elected politicians.

As a result of the violence and instability, basic services for the average Iraqi lag below their pre-war levels. Areas throughout the country, particularly in Baghdad, receive less hours a day of electricity than before the war. Schools remain closed across the country because of the increasing number of Education Ministry employees and teachers who have been targeted. The country’s unemployment rate ranges from 25 percent to 50 percent. Since unemployment in the Kurdish north remains relatively low, that number is disproportionately high throughout the rest of country, particularly the western provinces.

Iraq’s oil production is still below its pre-war levels and Iraqi oil refineries are refining half of their pre-war total, resulting in widespread fuel shortages. To compensate, although it has the 3rd largest proven reserves of oil in the world, Iraq is planning on spending an estimated $800 million on imported refined oil products from its neighbors. It is now estimated that from January of 2004 to March of 2006, Iraq lost a potential $16 billion in oil exports.

The list goes on and on.

In summary, Iraq is in complete disarray and its citizens are suffering the consequences. While we can question which seeds for this disarray were sown during the totalitarianism of Saddam Hussein, it is undeniable that all have been exacerbated by the American invasion. On its own, Saddam’s removal from power was for the benefit of the Iraqi people. However, that act, coupled with the ensuing mismanagement of the war and the dramatic miscalculation of its consequences, may very well have been to their detriment.

Before, Iraqis dare not speak out against their government because of the consequences of defying Saddam Hussein. Today, those same Iraqis are changing their names or sleeping with AK-47s to protect their families and to avoid being slaughtered. These Iraqis must live every day with the consequences of a pre-emptive war our government chose to wage on their doorsteps. Most suffer, not because of what they have done or through any fault of their own, but simply because of who they are and where they were born.

The realization that the Iraqi people are worse off today than they were under Saddam Hussein is a sobering short-term prognosis, but it does not have to be the final judgment. We are at a turning point in the War in Iraq and the decisions made by our government over the next 4 to 6 months will undoubtedly have a dramatic impact on what that final judgment will be.

A re-look-see at the Constitution

While Bill Maher may not always raise the level of political discourse in this country, at least he puts a humorous twist on it. His commentary in the Boston Globe this week doesn't dissapoint. A brief excerpt:

"There's no out-of-the-box thinking in this country. If we were really looking for a new direction, we'd not just change Congress, we'd have another Constitutional Convention, as Jefferson suggested we do. Jefferson said: "Let us provide in our Constitution for its revision. . . every 19 or 20 years. . . so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation." He himself was saying, "I'm a bright guy, but even I can't foresee the iPod." Or the assault rifle.

But that's Jefferson's phrase: periodical repairs. This thing needs periodical repairs, but it hasn't been in the shop for 219 years. Of course it's belching oil. Literally. And that's because one of the glaring flaws a Constitutional Convention might correct is something called corporate personhood, which means somewhere along the way, stupid or corrupted courts gave corporations all the rights of individuals, with none of the liability. If some person defecates on your lawn, we throw him in jail, but if a corporation does it, they get a tax break. Somehow "we the people" got to be defined as Halliburton. This thing needs to go in the shop!

And I know traditionalists are saying, "But Bill, it's a sacred document!" Please, it's full of crap about pirates, for God's sake. And I don't mean the kind that copies Justin Timberlake CDs. I mean peg legs and parrots. "The founders were so brilliant." Yes, they were: the proof being, the government they designed keeps functioning even with cement-head doofuses like you in it.

Listen to Jefferson -- he was saying, "We're smart guys, we're not Nostradamus." We deal with things today no founding father could have imagined -- the Internet, global warming. Toilet paper, instead of bark. If Ben Franklin got beamed in to visit us today, the first thing he'd say is, "For 17 dollars, I get porn on my TV all day? How can the hotel afford that?" And then he'd say, "You're still using the old Constitution that we told you to revise? That's so nuts hemp must still be legal."

The New Congress and Trade

The balance of power in Congress has been tipped in favor of the Democrats. With the Democrats in power there will finally be a check on executive power and some oversight on the Iraq War. The most unfortunate possible change from this freshman class of Dems is that Congress may turn against free trade.

These aren't Democrats in the mold of Bill Clinton, who believed in free trade and investing in infrastructure. This freshman class of Democrats promises to be fiscally and socially conservative and, unfortunately, anti-free trade and anti-immigration. These democrats represent the more nationalist constituencies of this country.

Slate's Jacob Weisberg has given the incoming Democrats the “The Lou Dobbs Democrats” moniker. Like Lou, they blame free trade and immigration for the ills of the middle class. It's misplaced blame.

With trade, the costs are targeted. Anyone can point to the loss of jobs and tie that to lower wages abroad. It is much more difficult to point to the widespread benefits of trade. You would have to imagine the world without trade. Prices for basic goods at the supermarket would be higher, you couldn't get certain produce, like tomatoes, year-round. Prices at Wal-Mart, and you may not believe this, would actually be higher. Cloths, cars, computers, plane tickets, phone bills and any other good or service provided by business that cut costs by outsourcing work or importing cheaper raw materials would have higher costs, and thus, higher prices.

Who would this hurt the most? Not the super-rich CEOs. It would hurt the single moms and middle-class families who makes ends meet by shopping at Wal-Mart. It would hurt the very poorest people trying to buy basic goods.

Stifling free trade won't solve the problems of those who lost jobs due to outsourcing.
Investment in education, infrastructure and technology will. Don't expect these new Democrats to understand that, but hope that some of their older counterparts will be wiser.

Truman v. Bush

I have been reading David McCullough's Harry Truman biography. As I near the end, I am surprised by the sharp contrast between Truman's legacy and the unfavorable public opinion of his presidency around the time he announced he would not be seeking reelection.

In 1952, news polls reported that only 32 percent of the people approved of the way he was handling his job, despite his successes domestically and abroad. Sounding much like our current president Truman wrote:

I wonder how far Moses would have gone if he'd taken a poll in Egypt? What would Jesus Christ have preached if he'd taken a poll in Israel? It isn't polls or public opinion of the moment that counts. It's right and wrong.

In retrospect, Truman has been vindicated, his presidency considered an overall success.

President Bush appears to have much in common with Truman besides a disbelief in the utility of public opinion polls. Like Truman in 1952, Bush is overseeing an unpopular war, there is economic prosperity domestically and his approval rating is hovering in the 30's. Also like Truman, Bush has a stubborn belief in the decisions he makes and uses down-to-earth, straight forward rhetoric to appeal to the everyday person. The parallels beg the question; will history look back as favorably on George W. Bush? Admittedly, it is early to begin speculating, but I'll speculate no matter.

It worried me that despite all of Bush’s mistakes, he could be seen as perhaps one of the greatest presidents. But then I reflected on the leadership style of Truman and that of Bush. Because their presidencies’ have been consumed with foreign policy, I’ll focus there. Both faced their respective problems: Truman the rise of communism and Bush the emergence of Islamic extremism.

Truman was the reluctant leader. He admitted there were men more up to the task of being president than he, but the responsibility was his. In the first weeks in office Truman had to make decisions that brought an end to WWII, met with Stalin and Churchill to decide the fate of Europe and eventually implemented the Marshall plan. While Truman did not seek out these responsibilities, he made it clear that the buck stopped with him and he responded as he best knew how.

He was heavily criticized by everyone and expected to lose to Dewey in the 1948 presidential election, but won a stunning upset victory. He eventually committed American troops to fight an act of aggression in Korea, and was criticized by many for not taking General MacArthur’s advice to broaden the conflict to include China, which would purportedly bring a swift end to the war. Truman decided not to broaden the war, which he believed might risk starting World War III and end in a nuclear holocaust. While charged with being soft on communism, the Truman doctrine set the course to win the cold war.

Bush could be considered a victim of circumstances and the events on 9-11. In a way he was, but the country rallied around him and he took appropriate action in Afghanistan. After invading Afghanistan, the Bush doctrine broadened the war on terror to include Iraq.

Bush has pursued a war in Iraq that will likely be his biggest liability when historians start postulating about his legacy. It was the leadership he has shown in pursuing the Iraq War, which makes him vastly different than Harry Truman. The record will reflect that unlike Truman, Bush had a weak legal justification for going to war, pursued the war without international support and, ultimately, weakened the United Nations (UN). In setting the course for the fight against Islamic extremism, Bush has left the United States without strong international allies and the threat of military force to deal with emerging threats from Iran and South Korea.

In setting the strategy for winning the Cold War, Truman ensured the formation of the UN, bolstered its prominence in international affairs and strengthened our ties with international allies. Bush faces a new set of challenges, but one that he approaches with cowboy diplomacy, disdain for international institutions and air of arrogance, rather than humility and quiet confidence.

Two years from now I wonder what standard should be used to evaluate the success or failure Bush's presidency. One question that comes to mind is if when Bush leaves office, will the United States be better off then when he came into office? Truman certainly did.

A Brother's Thoughts

Pat Tillman’s brother, Kevin, recently wrote a powerful commentary to mark his deceased brother’s birthday, which is a day before the upcoming mid-term elections. Kevin and Pat both served in the Army Rangers during the invasion of Iraq and later in Afghanistan. Up until Pat was killed by friendly fire in April 2004, he was the Administration’s unwilling “poster boy for patriotism.”

But since his death, the subsequent cover-up by the Pentagon, and the ongoing failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kevin has spoken out more and more about the reckless Administration that has continually undermined the very things his brother fought and died for. A brief excerpt:

In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don’t be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that “somehow” was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites.

Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action. It can start after Pat’s birthday.

Darfur, no good options

The promise made at the end of WWII to prevent all future genocide rings hollow now. The ongoing situation in the Darfur region of Sudan is abhorrent; up to 450,000 people murdered and 2 million displaced. The genocide of non-Arabs being perpetrated by the Janjaweed militia and supported by the Sudanese government is already compared to other recent genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia.

Despite the numerous speeches and resolutions defining the atrocious events in Darfur as genocide and condemning the actions of the Sudanese government, world leaders have yet to determine how best to confront genocide or even shown a willingness to do so. It is not because of a lack of compassion, but instead, a lack of preparation. In entries to come, I will explain my take on the situation, why world leader are left with no good options to halt the killings taking place in Darfur and what changes people should demand if they feel, as I do, that there is a moral obligation to intervene in such dire situations.