The Pros and Cons of Confidence

Miguel pointed his readers to an essay by Bill Wittle about confidence and why it contributed to America's greatness.

I read most parts of Bill's essay. (It is way long) What he says about confidence really hits the spot in terms of how Americans think in my opinion.
Most things are achieved in the US because of this absolute belief that they can be achieved.
Other countries lack that spirit. My country (Germany) for example is not confident at all.
Well, we all know the reason for that... last time we were confident we killed millions of people because we thought we were the best.
Anyway, as good as confidence is... overconfidence can be dangerous. And I don't mean as grim an example as the German one here. But maybe sometimes confidence leads you to errors, wrong decisions and you might fail your purpose although you acted with great confidence and meant really well.

The Iraq war is one of the main sources fueling this kind of discussion but it is not a good example because it hasn't ended, yet. I'd say we could talk about that in like ten or even twenty years. If by then a working democracy based on the free will of the Iraqi people is in place we can all bow down to the spirit of confidence that led there. If Iraq is still in trouble with terrorists, rebels who think of themselves as freedom fighters or if a corrupt and/or oppressing system is in place we might acknowledge that overconfidence led to the situation.

A nice quote from Bill's essay is:

"...if we actually believe the US is the source of all the misery in the
world,... then something is indeed very wrong with our foundation..."

Of course it isn't. And everybody who thinks otherwise is in need of a quick reality check.
But what if I said:
The US is the source of all the greatness in the world.
Or
Nothing other than greatness has come from American soil.
Wouldn't I need a reality check as well?
Now, I don't know a single person who actually and literally would have claimed that. The confidence, however, with which the US is trying to spread its opinions, its way of life, its products and anything maybe disturbing for others.

Look, I really try to understand the American psyche. A nation founded on the principle:
We can! I lived in the US and tried to embrace that principle. But please don't take it to extremes!
If you think, we must because you can then you are at the point of overconfidence clouding your view for reasonable arguements. (And promoting the rule of the fist over the democratic culture of debate, which is ironic because you are actually trying to promote democracy)

I have observed that a plea like mine is received very defensively in the US. If I question your judgement then I am favoring "the enemy". Don't paint in black and white.

Recently, so called "Old Europe" sometimes acted as if it knew everything better while it actually didn't. Please don't do the same.

Not everyone who dares to criticize certain decisions of your politicians is either a well meaning, naive hippy or a "stinking commie".

(Those paragraphs about the stinking commies, the losers and so on... they remind me of the communist witch hunts in McCarthy's era. Please don't start seing a communist in everyone who has a stronger social conscience than the bootstraps-belief. You can only pull yourself out of a mess by your bootstraps if society gave you the opportunity to have boots.

I think, communists are the tiniest group among the people criticizing US government's decisions. But it is pretty convenient not having to deal with arguments if you can cry "commie!" instead.)

In any case,
finally I think I found the fundamental difference between the American and the Old-Europe psyche: In contrast to the confidence of "We can" in Europe there is this belief in the law. The way to the war in Iraq seems to be a good example for that. (Iraq is not a good example however to measure whether America's action was driven by confidence or overconfidence as I mentioned above)

This belief in law has flaws, arguably. Sometimes we are rigid. We didn't want to start a war in Iraq because we were not sure wether the outcome would be better than the current situation. When the US decided they wanted to wage that war (in order to install a democratic Iraqi regime) but not all by themselves, they searchedUN approval. But none would come because the UN couldn't agree on that Saddam's breaches of UN resolutions were important enough to wage war. So some guy in the US government or in an association closely related to it may have felt the obligation to forge evidence about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Either that or the people analyzing data about possible WMD were just incompetent for the job.

So in a way, the European rigidness of believing in law may have forced that forgery because America wanted to appeal to our kind of reasoning in order to convince us of what they (confidently) knew: That they were right as well as the war was right(eous) .

Maybe a departure from both sides would be a good idea. If Europeans understood that law is not always more important than human life and if Americans understood that they can be wrong even though they are confident of their decisions then we could all grow as people and help create a better world, couldn't we?

Sometimes, everything that is needed is the courage to admit to have been wrong. That goes to Europeans and Americans alike. As I said, for the Iraq situation it is too early to tell.

But, I may be wrong about that. :-)

War on terror - the big picture?

Still occupied by Miguel's wish list for the US presidency.
In his blog the long term strategy for the war on terror is discussed.

I was never convinced that the US had the right strategy in this struggle. But believe me, I don't flatter myself in trying to give an easy solution.

Concerning the war on terror strategy persued by the US some points remain unclear for me. I can't quite get them. I'd like to share them with you here.

Well, what is the long term plan for the war on terror? Can you basically sum it up to bringing democracy by the sword and scare the hell out of any potential opponent with the threat of invasion? Will potential terrorists be hunted down and killed all over the world?

Will other countries have to be invaded? If so, which will be likely? Iran? Syria? What about Saudi Arabia? North Korea? Will the people in these countries hail the incoming troops as liberators or side with their fellow countrymen?

Is the war on terror a Last-Man-Standing battle of good vs. evil? Is it likely to win it? Is there a possibility to lose it?

When will the Bush administration begin to feel safe and ready to stop fighting? After all terrorists are gone? Will they ever?
Will a decade (Miguel mentions that time frame) of terrorist attacks and retaliation/preemptive strikes lead to peace, liberty, tolerance and democracy?

Why does this sound like Utopia?



Edit: I watched parts of an interview with G. W. Bush today. It was from his campaign bus.
He said that the war on terror could not be won but that we could make it harder for the terrorists. I agree here.

Quo vadis, Iraq?

How long will it take until Iraq can have peace? I don't know. Will the "coalition of the willing" bring it? Again, I don't know. Somehow, I get the suspicion that the Bush administration is looking for an easy exit. They continue to press on handing over government action to Iraqi officials quickly.

Sounds good? Yes, sounds good. But it might be done for a selfish purpose: If Iraqis are in power again, the Bush administration can claim not to be responsible anymore and pull the troops out...
To what end? My guess is that after a sizable period of total chaos a fundamentalistic system will emerge. The Middle East won't get safer but more instable than it already is. That doesn't sound so good, does it?

I have been following the news about the torture scandal for several weeks now. Up until now, I didn't want to write anything about it, because the facts were not easy to comprehend. Furthermore it seemed unclear whether the accusations are thruthful or if the pictures were forged. In the blogs I read, this issue has hardly been discussed as well. Maybe it is time for this, now.

I just read a lenghty essay in New York Times (online) Magazine by Susan Sontag about the torture pictures from Iraq.
(If you don't already have a free nytimes account you need to open one in order to read the article.)

While I don't agree with everything she says, I fully support her criticism towards holding "detainees" indefinitely. America came to bring law and order and freedom (or so Bush said). Some U.S. soldiers seem to have missed that during briefing. (Referring to the torture/abuse scandal)

The other explanation, of course, would be all the more horrible... that soldiers might have been briefed to abuse the prisoners. Would that surprise us? Not me. Maybe that sort of thing is bound to happen if government officials keep saying: "THEY attacked us, we strike back." Iraq attacked? With what? Where is the clear link to Al Qaeda? It's here. Oh, and while we are on the subject... where are the Iraqi WMD?

Many people around the world, but especially in the Middle East, might regard the photos as proof for an American attitude of superiority. An attitude that says we are better than you, we have a right for our liberties but you don't. You are just like dogs therefore you get leashed.

Of course, this doesn't do the majority of Americans justice. So many Americans I know are just proud of their country. Why not? However, I don't agree with the Bush administration to label the tortures in Iraq un-american. There is no such thing. Bad people live in all countries.

America stands for a lot of good things, even for some "good" wars. But it has a record of atrocities as well. Which country doesn't? Still, some Americans tend to forget their own share of it. Slaugther of civilians in Vietnam, genocide on the American Indians, Concentration camps for Japanese during WW2... Today similar camps exist as well. Look to Cuba or to the prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq.

(Another issue would be the detention of German soldiers at the end of WW2 on the "Rheinwiesen". It is hard to find reliable sources on this. Official sources indicate that 5000 to 10000 people died of starvation and deseases in the swamp-like Rheinwiesen. Inofficial numbers go up to 750000. The issue is not widely discussed. Unfortunately, most sources seem to come from a right-wing background. Therefore they may very well be biased. So at the moment I can not tell you which numbers are correct.)

Are these things un-american? What is American? Hamburgers and BBQ or guns and lynch law? Labeling the tortures in Iraq un-american is the attempt to find an easy way out of this mess. It implies: "Just a few erroneous soldiers, but the system is great." I challenge the notion of moral superiority.
Democracy lives because of checks and balances. Even in times of war this should not be forgotten. Sad thing is, the war on terror seems to justify almost anything.

EDIT: I posted this last night at 2.30 in the morning. I was very sleepy, so I didn't make myself clear at all points. I tried to correct that this morning.

Puzzling historical parallel?

The two German policemen missing in Iraq are probably dead. I mentioned that already. But...
I watched the news yesterday: Some Iraqis who claim to have been involved in the attack on the convoy apologized, saying they never wanted to hit Germans. They would like the Germans and hated the British and Americans.

This alone is hard to digest. So it has really come to that: Hatred so deep that one can be sure these Iraqis would commit Genocide if they had the tools. They hate Americans and British not only for their politics but also for their nationality.

Now, my father is an archaeologist and he has spent two years in Iraq in the 50s. There was one incident which really went under his skin.
The european group was in the city center of some town when suddenly an angry mob began throwing stones at them shouting and cursing. The guide of the group shouted back that the group was German and not English. All of a sudden the crowd calmed down made way and raised their right hands for the NAZI Greeting.

Anti-semitism forms strange alliances.

Situations in history change, ideologies change, mentalities change... all the more frightening if hatred can last that long.

However, I am aware of other interviews I have seen yesterday in which some Iraqi claimed that they would crush and destroy all the foreigners no matter if they were Americans, Germans, Chinese or whatever.

This post is not meant as a political opinion but just as a note of some thoughts that have crossed my mind recently. I am not ready to daw large scale concluisions by now.


Sidenote to Anti-semitism in the region: No matter if we think the movie "The Passion of the Christ" is anti-semite or not, its success in the arab world indicates that a large proportion of it seems to think so.

Two members of German Special Forces "GSG 9" probably shot in Iraq

The situation is still unclear. But two Germans are missing in Iraq since their convoy was ambushed near Falluja. Actually, I don't know what they did there, because German forces are not involved in the occupation of Iraq. Probably they are there because the GSG 9 counts as police force and not as part of the military.

In any case, correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know these would be the first two non-civilian German victims in the Iraq conflict.
(I think there have been casualties among the journalists)

According to media reports a reporter from British Sunday telegraph supposedly claimed to have seen the bodies of two Germans.

I don't know if that will add a different perspective to German views on the conflict.

My guess is, that public opinion will even more than before stress that the situation in Iraq is out of control and that one shouldn't have gone there in the first place.

However, the government has made its point clear several times: Germany didn't agree with the US that the war was the best decision to be made, but will do everything in its power to help the allied forces succeed in building a democratic and peaceful Iraq as long as it can be done without the involvement of German troops.

I am curious to observe if that opinion will change in the near future.

Iraq - will it be a second Vietnam?

In the current situation, it doesn't matter anymore whether one supported the war that led to Saddams fall or not. If Iraq cannot be transformed into a peaceful democracy, the world will have to face years or decades of chaos, more terrorist threats and maybe economic (oil) crisis.

This worst case scenario probably needs some explanation, but I may get into that some other time (hopefully).

I think, that the Coalition troops are in the process of losing control over the situation in Iraq. The Shiites are on the rise, they have leaders like Al-Sadr who propose a radical Islam free from foreign intervention (Especially if it comes from a christian-jewish background).

Some are suggesting that troops should be pulled out before Iraq turns into Bush's Vietnam... well, I don't think retreating will help.

The power vaquum in Iraq is bad enough as it is, pulling out will probably make it worse. Think of the underlying message. It would say: "We failed".

So, the situation is, America and its allies (plus all the traditional allies who just disagreed about the usefulness of the war)are doomed to pacify Iraq. We are all doomed to success. I hate it, but I have to admit that I am rather clueless, HOW this task ahead shall be tackled.

It seems to me that we might very well see an approach similar to the one that Israel has with the palaestinians. You know, attacking "the infrastructure of terror." I think this is a bad idea. It isn't working in Israel, why should it work in Iraq?
On the other hand, as I mentioned, I don't know it any better.

What really struck me in shock and awe (so to speak) is media reports over here (Germany) that Sunites and Shiites are uniting against the "invaders". Who would have ever thought that this might happen after all those years of Sunite oppression?

So basically, my post today is not a political opinion about what is to be done... it is more of a helpless question: Really, what should be done???

Drawing parallels: The Late Roman Republic?

Recently, I had quite a debate over drawing parallels of current events to historic events. Generally, I think that drawing parallels can help to grasp a current situation. On the other hand, situations rarely resemble each other completely. Therefore one could come to false conclusions about the present by looking at the past for an answer.

Just an hour ago I read Steph's weblog. (The article entitled "Jakarta Visits Russia".) Miguel commented on it. Reading that comment I was suddenly struck by a parallel. Being aware of all the shortcomings that are involved with such parallels I would like to share it with you, nonetheless. I hope you can help me to make it more accurate or find good reasons for not drawing the parallel at all. I am sorry for the rather long intro and beware: here comes another one, this time referring to the parallel directly:

The United states are the only Superpower in the world. The UN is a supernational organisation, clearly not the world government. In some ways it resembles a government (like in setting rules or "international law") in other ways - very vital ways - it is short of a world government, like enforcing those rules with police or an army. The USA are just one member of this institution. They are more powerful in it than many others because of the veto power, but that veto power can also be executed by four other nations who are less powerful than the USA.

It seems like other nations are expecting from the US to ignore the fact that they are the only superpower and go back to the UN to be only one out of five again. This is were the parallel comes into play. (I 'll give a very brief intro to the period in italics. If you want to hit the parallel directly just skip the italics)

In roman history one period is called the late roman republic. Usually we are talking about a time between 133 BC (When the Gracchi brothers first appeared) and the end of the republic in 27BC (when Gaius Octavianus, the later Augustus, came to power).
This time was charaterized by instability. For many reasons. I cannot give all of them here, that would fill books and I couldn't write them cos I am not an expert. One reason was the inability of the Senate to reform the system. In the old days, the romans had been very traditional when it comes to government. After they had kicked out their king and formed a republic they could still select a quasi king in times of trouble. The selected official would be called dictator, would rule like a king but had to step down after six months. He couldn't be held acountable for his actions during the reign, though.

ok, strangely enough that worked. None of the dictators abused his power to set up a kingdom again. They all stepped down and became normal citizens. In the late roman republic though, things had changed. Roman generals marched on Rome and set up their own governments. First it was Marius, then Sulla who kicked out Marius. Their reigns were unconstitutional. Sulla stayed in power for three years, then he stepped down ( in the tradtition of the office) but during his reign he had killed nearly all of his rivals so that it was safe for him to step down. Anyway, half a year later he died and the roman republic was there again. But every ambitious roman had seen the examples set out by Marius and Sulla.

Still, the most powerful men sat in the Senate but everyone mistrusted each other. For a long time there was fear that Pompeius or Crassus Dives would become kings of Rome, Later Caesar was feared. everyone plotted against everyone. The problem of the time was that Rome needed large powerful armies but was afraid of its generals. These generals were wielding the greatest power in the world and were aware of it. How could the other Romans expect them to lay their power down and transform into one out of 500 again? (I think there were 500 senators.) I will not judge who was most responsible for the civil war in which eventually Caesar came to power beating the senate army under Pompeius.
Historians today still argue whether Caesar wanted to built a monarchy or was driven to his quasi kingship by the mistrust of the senate.

The parallel I am trying to get at is that like in the late roman republic there is fear today that a superpower could form a quasi world government. Back then, many rivals of Caesar and Pompeius very nothing more then envious and wanted the same power. This may be the case today, too. I am a little worried that the world gets divided into pro-USA and pro-France-Russia factions or whatever other factions one can think of. I am sure, that no Roman back then wanted the civil war that started when Caesar crossed the Rubicon river. Also, today noone is interested in a war between european powers and America.

Let me point out, I don't think that the USA want to rule the world. They don't want to be bullied by it, though. The same is true for other countries. They don't want to be bullied by the US.
Many people want the UN to play the vital role in Iraq and in the world. They ask the US to go back to the UN. Count me in here, too. I have had the same opinion. The thing, that makes me question my own position here is that it may have been the same kind of pressure that drove Caesar to cross the Rubicon.

I don't know, I guess I AM an idealist still believing in the concept of the UN. The senate had such idealists, too. Not all the senators were envious rivals. Maybe we can say that the rivalry was important for the failure of the senate. I hope the rivalry among states will not be the end of the UN leading to WW3.

Ok, here was my parallel. I know it has many shortcomings. For example, the senate really ruled the imperium romanum but the UN Security Council never really ruled the world. However, in the Senate where the most powerful people of their time debating and deciding on politics. That is true for the UN Sec. Council as well. There may be other distortions in my parallel as well, I am sure you can help me to point them out.

You know,it took me about a second to come up with this parallel when I read Miguel's comment in Steph's log. All the things I mentioned were in my head at the same time. So many bells ringing. I am saying that to point out that this is nothing more than brainstorming. Every comment is welcome.

Letter to Gene Simmons

I read on Miguel's log a statement by Gene Simmons (KISS frontman). I felt like responding to it because Gene has a letters section on his home page. I post my resonse here as well.

Hello Gene, I just read your statement about Saddam and the Iraq war. (I read it on a weblog).
What will be done if the Iraqi people elect an ayatola regime similar to that in Iran? From the protests currently held in Iraq that seems likely to me.
You know, I am from Germany and I agree that going to WW2 was the right thing to do for the US. Hitler needed to be removed from power. I am grateful that this happened and I understand why you are grateful as well. My question is, if America may go to any other war now and in the future because they did the right thing in WW2?
You say America is not interested in ruling other countries. Generally I agree to that. However, it seems to be interested in WHO rules HOW in the case of countries where America has a national interest in. Why does America support some dictatorships and fights others? Why does it leave most dictatorships alone, neither supporting nor fighting them?
I am not saying America should be the world police mingling in every conflict on this planet. I just don't like the fact that it behaves like world police only when national interest is involved at the same time selling it as an unselfish well-spirited strive for a better world.

In my opinion neither France nor Russia nor the US administration cared for the Iraqi people, they cared for oil. For Russia and France it was easier to get the oil with Hussein in power, for the US it is easier to get it with a new regime. That is a clear interest, it is understandable to persue it even if we don't like it.

Germany has the most ridiculous role in this conflict, I guess. Cos our chancellor cried pacifism for fear not to be reelected. After he won the election he needed to maintain this position in order not to be called a liar. It seems like everyone has an agenda of economic interest in this conflict. Germany however is playing big politics without the chance to gain anything.
Personally, I didn't like this war. Mainly for three reasons.
1. I don't think that international terrorism will be weakened, instead it may be strengthened if Arabic nations regard the US as conquerers and not as liberators.
2. I am afraid that democracy in Iraq will not be successful. Instead an islamistic authoritarian regime may be installed (similar to Iran), probably as oppressive as Saddam's regime.
3. The war was a "pre-emptive" strike. That is a dangerous precedent. India may strike pre-emptively against Pakistan, for example. If America does it, why shouldn't anyone else be doing it? This war makes it easier for war-mongers all over the world to argue pro-war. If we just stay with the India-Pakistan example, a nuclear war may be ahead of us.

Bagdad Museum:

First of all, let me tell you that I am glad that the war is over with Saddam being removed from power.
I understand the danger of shooting at looters with relatively few troops present. Urban warfare might have erupted with lots of casualties.
But some things should have been protected by troops along with the oil ministry building, especially hospitals and the national museum.

That can't be too hard. Put a tank and three soldiers at the front door and that's it. When the Russians took Berlin they immediately secured the museums for example. They had cultural officers with them who took care of that. I mean scientists, experts in the field. Of course, Russia wanted to take some of the goods from the museums, so they had to secure them first, but that is beside the point.
If America can take reporters with them they could have taken cultural experts as well.

From what I read in the papers, American scientists had demanded from the Pentagon that this one museum had to be secured immediately because it is one of the six great museums in the world for the ancient near east. (The others being the Louvre in Paris, the Pergamon Museum in Berlin, the Museum in Kairo, the British Museum in London and The Met in New York)

A sidenote to the museum:
My father is an archaeologist. He has excavated in Iraq in the 1950s. He found the tomb of the latest ancient olympic champion in the boxing competition. It was a persian prince. In this tomb his boxing gear and his golden olympic branch were found. (You know, the thing that would be the gold medal today).

As far as I know, it was the only such antique award ever found. It used to be in the Bagdad museum which was looted. This is the only item from the museum I personally know of. Many way more important items are gone. The first traces of writing on this planet, for example. And what could not be carried away was destroyed: Great statues were smashed and so on.

One tank in front of the museum might have been enough.

Yes, the living are more important than the dead, so why weren't the hospitals secured?
You know, I don't want to badmouth everything the troops do in Iraq. It is great how fast Saddam was kicked out with few casualties. I am not easily carried away into cheering escapades, though when anarchy takes Saddam's place.

Well, it seems, that the neighborhood watches being formed are doing a fine job by now. Good, I cannot give merit to coalition troops for it, though. Basically, they faced the Iraqi people with two options: Let your country go to waste or protect it yourself.

However, I am glad that American troops have joined in by now, assisting Iraqis in protecting hospitals, patrolling the streets and stuff like that.

The War is over - when will Chaos end?

I am relieved that it seems to be safe to say that the war in Iraq is over now. Actually, it ended pretty quickly. I am positively surprised about the early defeat of Saddam's regime.
It is unfortunate, that chaos followed immediately after the regime was dethroned. So much looting in Bagdad!

It is understandable that Iraqi people want to take something from the dying regime. The sad thing is even hospitals were robbed. Additionally, I watched a TV report on the Bagdad national museum yesterday. It was filmed like two days ago. The whole thing is empty. It was the most important collection of Mesopotamian history as far as I know. The collection must be woth several hundred million Dollars.

Now, I don't know if the collection had been hidden before Americans conquered Bagdad or if the museum fell prey to looters. In any case, this is a great loss for mankind, since we are talking about Mesopotamia, the first high culture on this planet.

Some pictures I have seen suggest that troops watched the lootings in the city but did not interfere. Well it is not easy to judge such a behavior. If they prevent lootings they might stirr up sentiments against them, since the looters may feel they only take things that Saddam had stolen from them. On the other hand this is a very bad start for a post-dictatorian Iraq as a democratic constitutional state.

international law 101

Miguel posted something very interesting on international law in his weblog.
He uses a nice analogy of a village and its inhabitants to illustrate the relations between countries in the world.

An analogy is helpful to illustrate complicated facts in a simple way. Of course, simplifications bear the risk not to be precise enough. Also, since matters are usually not that simple they can be interpreted differently by some people. Therefore someone may tell another story of that village. I disagree with some parts of Miguel's story. I would like to point them out here. Please read his post first, otherwise mine doesn't make any sense.

I will give some names to the peole involved (to make it easier following the story):
The person who supposedly has the candlesticks is called Saddam
The person who is acting informally as the sherif is called George.
Miguel named George's best friend Tony, already.

Ok, what had happened? (Caution: some major differences here to Miguel's story)
The village has rules but not a sherif to enforce them. Usually the villagers enforce the rules as they see fit.
Someone had broken into George's house destroyed something he was really proud of and roughed up his wife.
No candlesticks have been stolen. The person breaking in was not Saddam but Osama. While Saddam probably enjoyed the fact that Osama broke in, it remains unclear if he was supporting Osama in doing so.

Everything else is like in Miguel's story up to the point were George calls Tony and they go to Saddam's house. Let us be clear on some circumstances here:

George is not looking for candlesticks but for a machine gun. It hadn't been stolen but sold by George's ancestors as well as by some other villagers.
Now, Saddam claims not to have been involved in the break in. He claims that he does not have the machine gun anymore. The village council actually wanted to investigate the matter but Saddam was only reluctantly letting them enter his house. Too slow for George.

So the house is being dismantled. By now George and Tony have dismantled half of the house. The machine gun has not been found, yet. By now George has acused a neighbor of Saddam to hide the machine gun for him. That neighbor has a history of disliking George as well as Saddam, though.
By now, basically George has announced that he would have to look into every of the neighboring houses. Some of the other villagers are questioning George's motif. They are suspicious that he may have been looking for excuses to enter their houses. Maybe he just wants the extremely good soil in that area of the village. Most villagers urge for a meeting to discuss everything before more harm is done. There are people in the village who also have interests in Saddam's house. A guy called Jaques and another one called Vladimir had made agreements with Saddam about the use of Saddam's soil. They don't want someone else in that house.

By now, George has shifted his arguments. He doesn't really seem to care about the gun, he emphasizes that Saddam had beaten his wife and children. George wants to free them from their oppression. After Saddam is removed, he wants to take care of them for a while before he will let them decide on their own about what to do. The familiy indeed had suffered from Saddam. However, some family members fear that George wants to get the goodies in the house and the right to use Saddam's soil before givng them their freedom.

Saddams neighbors don't like the whole plan. They are distant relatives of Saddam and feel that Saddam's family will be forced to live life George's way. They feel threatened, that George might try to change their own way of life, too. Also, if Saddam will lose his house why shouldn't they get the goodies? They really don't like the idea, that George will decide on where these goodies go to. Some of Saddam's neighbors have also maltreated their families in the past. Up until now, neither George nor any of the other villagers had shown great interest in that matter. They were too interested in trading goods with each other. Is George going to remove them as well? On what grounds? Up until recently all the villagers had agreed not to interfere with matters that only concerned members of a single household.

Also, many familiy members in the houses of Saddam's neighbors feel more threatened by George coming into their houses than by their patriarchs.

So some villagers keep calling for meetings in order to settle the issues without violence, by way of compromise. They want to investigate the matter.
George doesn't want that. He may want the other villagers to help in rebuilding Saddam's house later, though. People wonder why the whole village should pay for rebuilding the house because most of them didn't want to destroy it in the first place. But of course, Saddam's family needs shelter. So they will eventually agree on rebuilding the house. George will have to pay, too. But at least he gets the goodies in return.

Saddam's neighbors fear that soon George will start to dismantle another house if he wants more soil, more goodies. Nobody can prove that, but the suspicions are there. This is why mistrust, or even hatred and vioence may occur. Many factors suggest that George may have (accidentally) started something that leads into a large scale feud splitting the village into two or more factions. In the end, most houses might be damaged if not destroyed.

How can this be resolved?
Joint action is the only way to really SOLVE the problem. If Osama and Saddam get their way, then maybe the whole village will sink into chaos and destruction. If George continues the dismantling and walks into other neighborhood houses, the same thing may happen.

The rules set by the community are the only hope to exit the vicious circle of destruction. Some villagers have seen that and have remained calm and rational and these people try to make the community work.

Bottom line: international law exists but is often rather vague and difficult to enforce. The USA can not be sued and sanctioned by the UN for taking matters into their own hands. (point taken)
But the decision to go to war was still wrong:
parts of the UN (for example the German government) pleeded to bear the goal of peace and stability in mind and argued that war on Iraq is counterproductive.

Only joint action in the UN can break the vicious circle of violence. Therefore, everybody should help to make international law stricter and easier to enforce.
A UN-super-state doesn't exist. Probably it shouldn't even exist. It would be hard to administer such a monster. But moves need to be made into that direction if we want to break the rule-of-the-fist. It is dangerous to be happy with the rule-of-the-fist only because one is the strongest. Envy, hatred, famine... a lot of things make this planet insecure, even for the strongest.

The safest way is cooperation on a supernational level. That is why we have international law. We should enforce it.
I said, we should enforce it. America, doesn't. It only enforces a small portion of it against the will of many/most members of the UN because it wants Iraqi oil. America seems not to agree in the need to break the vicious circle. America does not believe in supernational cooperation it only believes in national interest. I think I have pointed out, why that is a short sighted attitude.

Cluster bombs: How shall the hearts and minds be won by using them?

According to Human Rights Watch US forces use cluster bombs in their assault on Iraq. These weapons have a high failure rate, meaning many of them don't explode on impact. Basically, they turn into antipersonnel landmines. Civilians, as well as friendly soldiers will suffer from that.

German Journalists reported out of Iraqi hospitals today: They visited over three hundred civilian victims of coalition attacks from the last few days. A high percentage of them were children. They reported about picking up small yellow packages that had fallen from the sky. They exploded on touch.

German journalists insisted that while some information on this topic may be Iraqi propaganda parts of it must be true. In any case, Iraq is using antipersonnel landmines as well.
Horrible.

But don't you wonder how the "liberation of Iraq" shall be welcomed by one-legged children and their parents due to American cluster bombs?

Evidence on this whole matter is still very scattered, I haven't seen it on BBC or CNN, yet. Maybe Saddam is fooling the rest of the world right now. It could be, though, that the US and the UK are fooling us at the moment.

Is God blessing America?

It seems that in American politics the presence of God is always neccessary. I noticed that American patriotism is to a large extent connected to a religious aspect. Basically, God blessed America.

While I have been aware of this connection for quite some time, yesterday I gave special thought to this issue. I watched a documentary about the "new religious right" which formed in the US in the late 1970s and gained great impact on the presidencies of Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush, sen. Of course, the notorious issue of abortion was addressed in this film. This was fairly interesting, but it was merely the starting point from were my thoughts took off.

We all know of the WASP phenomenon. For decades (if not centuries) there has been one requirement every American politican had to fulfill in order to have a great career: He had to be a White Anglo Saxon Protestant. JFK was the first and only non-protestant President of the US. Well, he was catholic.
It seems to me that today the denonination is not that important anymore. But in order to be successful, one still needs to portray the image of piety. Hence all kinds of Christian rhetoric is found in political speeches.

This is extremely interesting because of the fact that in no other western democracy state and church are so clearly seperated institutionally. I mean, there are no religion classes in school, for example. The tolerance of other religions is much greater than overhere in Germany. An Organisation like Scientology is considered a sect here, in America it is a church.

So despite of this obvious freedom of religion, every politician needs to address God and Christian belief. Whenever the feeling of patriotism needs to be addressed you won't have to wait for a long time until God's blessing will be mentioned. Even on dollar bills Amercia portrays its christianity: In God we trust.
Generally, there seems to be a feeling that America is God's own country.

Why?

Actually, the bible says that the Jews are God's chosen people. Well, Jesus was a Jew. It seems logical from that point of view. Why America? Probably because of the founding fathers. Every school kid in the US learns how they came to this country in order to live in freedom. That they came to America because of the intolerance in England.
My HIS 212 (American Culture) prof at WMU put it differently. They came over the Atlantic because THEY were intolerant. They came because they were christian fanatics.

Maybe this explains why patriotism has been connected to religion in the US from early on. At least the founding fathers were the first WASPs.

In times of war, God seems to be referred to even more often than usual. Clearly, God wants Hussein to be removed from power. Does he?

Is America God's tool to create and preserve world peace? Is war the Christian way to achieve such things?
The pope disagrees. In the middle ages it was the papacy who called for crusades. Now it is calling for peace.

This war in Iraq is clearly not motivated by religion (at least for the coalition troops). Still there is this Christian rhetoric. Why does America want God as an ally in this war?
Pacifists are not taken seriously, these days. They are seen as naive idealists, far away from the brutal reality of the world.
That may be true. However, Jesus was a pacifist. How can any Christian believe that God could justify war? Apparently, more bible study groups are neccessary, especially in the White House.

Some signs of hope to end this war quickly?

Well, yesterday I expressed my pessimism about the overall outcome of this war. Militarily, it will be a victory for the coalition, however costly it may be. My concern was about the effect this war might have on the Middle East region.

Today, some news indicate that the Iraqi population may not unite in defense. We can not know for sure, but at least british information suggests that there is some kind of an uprising in Basra against the iraqi forces.
Noone can confirm that, yet, because the coalition is not in Basra. Maybe there is an uprising, maybe not. Maybe there was a revolt but iraqi troops ended it. We don't know.

Troops are advancing fast towards Bagdad, that is encouraging. Only the sandstorm seems to slow down the advance. Two things concern me, though.

1. pictures of thousands of Iraqis living in Jordan who come back home in order to fight.

2. the valiance and courage that Iraqi troops show near Bagdad.

Referring to my first point: These people in Jordan can watch Jordan TV. They are not limited to Iraqi propaganda. They decide to go back home to defend Iraq. This may be an indication of the effect that this war has on the arabic world, in general. Although most arab governments side with the coalition, their population seems to side with Saddam.

Referring to my second point: I watched CNN about an hour ago. An embedded journalist reported out of the sandstorm close to Bagdad. He said that this storm makes it impossible to advance. On the positive side it makes you basically invisible, as well. He reported that one can see only about the next 40 meters.
Still the convoy was under attack from Iraqi vehicles. The Iraqis were shooting with their machine guns at the tanks. The bullets cannot penetrate the tanks. Still Iraqis kept attacking. Their attack was cut down by the convoy. Basically Iraqi troops didn't have a chance. They were coming in pick up trucks!! The reporter was amazed by the outstanding courage of the attackers. He mentioned that twice in his 90 second statement.

So if the morale of iraqi troops is really that good, then guerilla warfare may trouble this country for a long time even after Bagdad is secured. Also, the main battles are still ahead, I think. Bagdad will probably be heavily guarded.

Unfortunately, I cannot quote the source, but yesterday a german news station reported that according to US military experts the fight for bagdad may cost the US 3000 lives.
For a war, this is a small number. But it is significant, nonetheless. I am not sure if the American public has been prepared for that.

The war in Iraq is affecting our daily lives. It sure affects mine. I am watching more of the news lately. Unfortunately, I get three different opinions by watching three different stations.
CNN basically suggests that all is well. German news stations are reporting on much heavier resistance than the invading troops may have expected. The BBC has been kind of vague on this lately.

However, it seems to me that the media is beginning to realize now, that there will be little cheering and more bullets waiting for the "coalition forces".
As sad as this is, I wonder why the American public is surprised about it. How could anyone expect Saddam's troops to surrender just like that? No matter if his troops like Saddam or not, they love their country. Therefore, they defend it against invasion. It seems like CNN is slowly adjusting its news coverage, gently preparing the public for more and more casualties. Basra, the city which was claimed to by under coalition control about three days ago, is now a military target. What about the inhabitants? They are as civilian as they were yesterday. It has been naive to think they would welcome invading forces. The Shiites there feel decieved by the US for not supporting them in their struggle with Hussein in 1991.

We were lead to believe that this war would be one of little civilian casualties. Also, we were lead to believe that this war would be swift and welcomed by the people of Iraq. That prooves to be far from accurate, right now. The strategy apparently underestimated Iraq. There is no point in complaining about the guerilla warfare tactics, Iraq apllies. If you face an invasion and are relatively ill-equipped the Geneva convention becomes less of a priority. The Iraqi army is pulling back into towns and wearing civilian clothes... well, this is the only strategy Iraq can take apart from surrendering or dieing. The Iraqi army would lose terribly in the open desert. In towns, the technological advantage of the US/GB forces is not as important. Also, by bringing the war to the towns and cities, Iraq achieves an objective that might be crucial to the overall success of the war. Iraq is uniting its people against "invaders". The reason is obvious. In order to defeat Saddam's fighters harder strikes will be neccessary. Strikes on towns, on cities, therefore also on civilians. Take some pictures of parents crying for their children into the equasion and you get a mood of hatred towards America. Eventually Iraq will be defeated militarily. But isn't the goal of this war to fight, weaken and defeat terrorism?: Didn't Mr. Bush set this goal? This war is about to increase muslim terrorsim. Already, violent outbursts erupt in other arabic countries. The population of the arabic world (except in Kuwait) sides with Saddam. This is sad, but it was to be expected. There are many reasons to be against this war. Some of them are connected to pacifism. I understand that the "hawks" won't agree on them. But what about the current situation? Isn't this war increasing the threat of terrorism? I am so surprised that "hawks" did not follow this argument and opposed war on this ground. I oppose the war because I think it will not help to achieve the ultimate goal: the defeat of terorism.

The bottom line is, we can expect many more casualties in the comnig days and weeks, soldiers and civilians. The American public has not been ready for that. It feels like cheap propaganda to declare Basra a military target now. Now, we have to bomb the people we are coming to liberate. Let's face it: the American strategy to win the people is going to fail. Just before the war started, Mr Bush said that this war could help to achieve long lasting peace in the region and help to solve the Israel-Palestine conflict.
It may be, however that the exact opposite will happen: the whole region in chaos and new waves of terrorism rolling...
I am not very optimistic, right now.