Help save some Iraqis
Since British troops occupied Southern Iraq in the spring of 2003, thousands of Iraqi citizens have worked for the British Army, the Coalition Provisional Authority (South) and for contractors serving UK forces. There is now considerable evidence that their lives, and the lives of their families, are at risk: some former workers for the British have been murdered, and many others have fled to neighbouring countries or gone into hiding in Basra. The British Government, for whom they were ultimately working, has not offered them the right of asylum in the UK. This is morally unacceptable.
The most detailed recent report, by Jonathan Miller of Channel Four news, notes the murder of 17 translators in one single incident in Basra. It cites the cases of hundreds of others who have fled to a refugee existence in nearby Middle Eastern countries or are in hiding in Iraq. The British Government response has come from the Home Office, which has suggested that Iraqis put at risk by their work for British troops ‘register with the UN refugee agency’. Other reports provide supporting detail: Iraqis are being targeted for murder because they have worked for British forces.
Marie Colvin’s report for the Times of April 8 speaks of desperate former workers for the British Army being turned away from the British embassy in Syria by staff who had orders not to admit any Iraqis. These brave men and women have testimonials written by British officers stating that they are at risk from jihadi violence: and yet we are still refusing to admit them to the United Kingdom.
Course of action:
1) Look up your MP.
2) Write to them. A draft version of the letter is below.
******
Dear (MP’s name)
As your constituent, I am writing to discover your views on the treatment of Iraqi citizens who are working or have worked for the British Army, for the contractors supporting it, and for the Coalition Provisional Authority in the South of Iraq. In particular, I would like to know if you support the right of these people to indefinite asylum in the United Kingdom. I strongly suggest that they do indeed have this right. They have, by definition, put their lives at risk by the support they have given to British soldiers who were sent to war by a vote of the House of Commons.
Whether you- or I- supported or opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq is immaterial. The risk run by Iraqis working for British troops is even greater than that run by the soldiers themselves. British soldiers are now suffering very high casualties in Iraq, and are continuing to serve bravely- but their local staff are obliged to live among neighbours who will, in many cases, be sympathetic to or even belong to the armed groups fighting the British army. We owe these people a clear moral debt. We cannot allow them to be murdered for the ‘crime’ of helping our service men and women.
The most effective way of helping these brave Iraqis is to offer them indefinite right to remain in the United Kingdom. There is plentiful evidence that armed groups in Iraq make a practice of murdering not only their ‘enemies’ but their families too: and for this reason we must extend the right of asylum to the families of those who have worked with us. This policy should be enacted immediately whether our forces stay in Iraq or are soon withdrawn. Applications for asylum cannot be ‘processed’ in a lengthy fashion: the situation in Basra is deteriorating, the ability of British soldiers to protect those that work for them is seriously compromised and any delay is likely to lead to the murder of Iraqis who have worked for the British military. I would appreciate your views on this matter.Yours sincerely
NAME
******
A blog campaign started by Dan Hardie, and supported by: Crooked Timber, Harry’s Place, Rachel North, Chickyog, Davide, Rosie Bell, Europhobia, Blairwatch and others.
There’s also a Downing Street Petition.
So what are you waiting for? The Danish recently did it, why can’t we?
To add it is also a good idea when writing to an MP to actually post it rather than email. A good number of them still take post more seriously than emails and you’re more like it’ll be read by their researchers/PAs/etc than it being lost in an inbox.
Use FaxYourMP.com (forwards to WriteToThem.com).
ha bloody ha - morally unacceptable! bit late to be saying this now. god. this is why us anti-war people found ridiculous about the whole war effort - we knew full well, nation-states being what they are, they will go and intervene elswhere, then when there is trouble, will say, but of course you can’t come back to ours, when it gets really unsafe.
everyone else pooh-poohed it, well now what to do? sure lets get involved, a nice political project for us, isn’t it. BUT next time someone wants to support a war, maybe they might want to think it through.
and we can’t detach this is from the moral unacceptability of the wider iraq mess.
I’m quite outraged by this. These are people who have assisted our forces and clearly shown who’s side they’re on, then they get shit on and left for the militias. Once word gets around that they can’t trust us, it’ll mean we can’t trust them - and that helps nobody.
Unless they were paid masses to compensate for the dangers - haha - we have a duty to get these people out if they so desire.
For those on Facebook the group is here: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2535669347
If you engage in business with a snake you shouldn’t be suprised when you get bitten.
I have very little sympathy for ex-employees of the British Invading Forces in Iraq. They made their bed now let them lie in it.
My local MP is a dude named David Lamy and he is one piece of work. If I was to be stupid enough in sending that letter to him, he would more than lightly laugh himself silly. When will we learn that there is no honour amongst theives?
They weren’t employed by the invading force, they were employed by the occupying force that came after.
Be interested to hear why you’re unsympathetic? What harm do you think translating for the British and briefing them on local culture, personalities and groups has done?
Dude
These Iraqis deserve our utmost help but the spare your derision for the supporters of the war. Reserve your spittle for Nick Cohen and Co, and dig deep in your pockets for these poor Iraqis.
As a matter of fact, they were employed by both.
As for my lack of sympathy. No one forced these people to work for the Brits and the Yanks. They made their choice and got paid. There are many in Iraq that is deserving of my sympathy but alas these ex-employees of the British “occupying” forces are not one of them.
How were they employed by both? Did they hop over the border, hook up with the British army then ride back in with them?
You’ve still not given a reason you don’t like them, beyond ‘I don’t like them’ or ‘I don’t like Brits, Yanks and anyone associated with them’. Is there another reason?
The aim of the campaign is comendable, but why just these Iraqis? I’m inclined to partially agree with the tone of Sonia’s post - this is a very targeted moral cause. Should resettlement in the UK be contingent on having been willing and able to assist UK troops? There are four million people displaced within Iraq or just across its borders. More….
I understand Dude’s point. These people were collaborators with an occupying army, so I’m not surprised they’ve been targeted — not saying it’s right but collaborators are never the most popular people.
Which is why we should get them out.
I can’t see why anti-war people could be against this. I’m trying to push the suspicion to the back of my mind that it’s gloating or each death is ammunition to the cause.
The question is not whether the occupying forces have a moral right to be there but whether, being there, they have a moral obligation to protect those who work for them.
I watched the C4 programme and the people included didn’t strike me as being quislings, but rather people who thought it best for their country that the heavily armed forces at large there had an understanding of how Iraqi society worked and saw Iraqis as people.
“collaborators” - Anas, for christ’s sakes, you are starting to sound more like a terrorist every day
it’s not that i am ‘against’ this - i just think if you’re going to focus on this, it brings the whole bloody mess into focus. Like i said, everytime a nation talks about intervention,
yes, if everyone knew that when it went wrong, they would have to let those people into their own precious country, then they would think bl**dy twice about intervening. Absolutely, that’s what i said in the run up to the war, especially to the ‘oh we must help them’ crew - what are you going to do when they don’t feel helped, but bombed out, and nowhere to live? are you then going to be prepared to offer up your own house? if yes, then go ahead. if no - then f**ck off.
its all about being prepared to deal with the reality of the situation.
Which is why we should get them out.
Yeah, and along with them our troops should get out too.
I can’t see why anti-war people could be against this
I’m not against it, regardless of their (IMHO morally unjust) collaborations with coaltion forces, these Iraqis shouldn’t be murdered — and yes they should be given asylum here. My point is that they are collaborators with an occupying force, so we shouldn’t idealise them. Personally I’m not too moved by their plight — in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of other dead in Iraq and the millions suffering thanks to the illegal war initiated by the US+UK.
“collaborators” - Anas, for christ’s sakes, you are starting to sound more like a terrorist every day
Huh? Explain, please.
Personally I saw this as a hopeful sign:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2129677,00.html
Anas - the reason we have to get them out is that we’re getting the troops out.
How is ‘collaborating’ with a democracy morally unjust while ‘collaborating’ with theocratic militias isn’t?
explain? nothing to explain, just the dude’s comments do betray a complete lack of empathy ( not just sympathy) and you seemed to agree with him. these people are in a bombed out country for f**k’s sake, some are going to try and work to rebuild it, instead of being more destructive. neither of you seem to get that, and be more inclined to the view of those who are attacking these people. you’re buying into the us/them thing from their side.
i think anyone who actually believes that a country’s alleged claims to hold up asylum commitments - is anything but lipservice - is living in cloud cuckoo land, just thought i’d point it out.
some of you might not know this- but the USA evacuated some of its citizens when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Britain and Canada did the same. People were under the impression it was for ‘free’ being an emergency service and all. Unfortunately, some people have now - all these years later - been billed (ridiculous sums of money) for being evacuated. But that aside, the main hoo-ha that happens when the public realise the insidious side of ‘nationality’ is when in times of crisis, countries will only evacuate/take care of its citizens ( not surprising given they will only take care of their members, but suprising to some who believe the lip service to human rights) Human rights in times of crisis don’t fit well with countries saying ‘i am only going to look after my members’ - of course this happens all the time, but it is only in times of crisis the other muggins wake up and realise this. Take the example of the tsunami, some British woman was mad at the foreign office for not helping her husband, who wasn’t a british national. The papers here seemed outraged about it, which made me laugh. By all means be outraged, but its a bit silly if you haven’t realised that’s what the nation-state system is all about.
its the kind of thing where you don’t understand the problems the system will generate - given that that is the way the system is designed! naturally there will be that problem. So address the wider cause as well or look like a bunch of muggins.
Anas, Its not quite occupied France, although I do understand your point.
Can everyone lay off him? He has not called for them to be left behind so they can have their throats cut. So why give him a hard time?
I think that Bert Preast hits the nail on the head:
As does Don:
Zinzin
I’ll second that motion. In fact I ‘ve read nothing from Anas which is factually incorrect. I’m getting sick and tried of lilly livered liberals who think they can cherry pick a deal with the devil. We went into Iraq on a lie. We stay in Iraq on a lie and so will we leave. We’re the bad guys for god’s sake.
Nowhere in any of my post have I said that the Iraqi ex employees of the British and American occupying forces deserved to be murdered but this is Iraq where very bad things happen everyday to perfectly innocent people. The people who decided to work for the occupying forces sold their innocence for so much pounds, dollars and cents. These people made their bed and now they expect me to lie in it. I don’t think so. They made their deal with the devil (us) and we are all naive to expect the devil (Bush and now Brown) to act with honour now.
If these people really wanted to help their country they should have kept far, far away from doing ANYTHING with the occupying forces. There are many more people in Iraq who are more deserving of our help than these freeloaders.
So the devil has a moral obligation…Ha, ha! Pull the other one it’s got bells on.
If there is a nail and if it has a head, the only hit is post #11 by GM.
needless to say sonia is brilliant as usual.
The Dude #25 - “There are many more people in Iraq who are more deserving of our help than these freeloaders”
Who? The ones who didn’t bother supporting democracy beyond a purple finger for a day? The ones who support the militias? Which militia would you rather see in power over the present governemnt?
Tell me who?
Sid #27 - so you’d say that even though those who have assisted UK forces have intentionally made themselves targets, that it’d be fairer to have some sort of lottery as to who we help out?
Bert
We turn Iraq into a living hell and you talk about democracy. Wonders will never cease.
So you think the Iraqis assisting our forces were in fact attempting to bring about a colonial government that would subjugate the people to their will?
Why can’t you accept that maybe they believe in democracy? That they see the British forces as a better bet for the future than their local militias?
I’ve just re-visited post No:11 and even though I couldn’t agree with everything it said, it’s main thrust and agrument ( the fact that great swaves of the Iraqi population are now displace and need help) was sound. By right, we should allow everyone of these people into our country but I don’t think this will happen any time soon. Not in our democracy.
Yes, they do need help. But no, they are not our responsibility. They are displaced by sectarian violence, and the reason no one wants them is because they’ll bring that baggage along with them.
How come you’ve not answered a single one of my questions?
Bert
You don’t need to persuade me, I’m a lost cause. Why don’t you take your soapbox to Basra and see how long you would last. When will YOU learn that democracy is worth nothing if it
1. Comes at the end of a gun and
2. If you’re dead!
These are the simple truths that we all need to learn. You, me, everyone.
Then Bert if “they are not our responsibility” why are we having this agruement? Oh I forgot you want to cherry pick on who you let in and on who you keep out.
Lest we forget, before the invasion of Iraq, there was no
1. Insurgency
2. Sectarian Violence
3. Terrorist Cells
4. Weapons of Mass Destruction.
On all four counts, there is now and WE brought it to them NOT the other way round.
So Iraqis hoping for democracy should just pack it in and let the militias take over? Do all your politics come at the end of a gun?
And I’m not in Basra because the recruiting age is 33, and I am 37. I was, however, involved in the run to Baghdad 16 years back. That’s why I know this wasn’t about a threat to launch gas filled SCUDS at Cyprus in 45 minutes, that was just to scare the plebs into compliance. I take a bit more of a long term view on these things.
What on earth is wrong with cherry picking who you let in? Call me a mad idealist, but I’d rather as a democracy we let in people who’ve shown some sort of commitment to democracy.
And you’re utterly wrong on 3 of the 4 counts, as the WMD one depends on your definition of what constitutes WMD.
Bert how naive you are its actually quite touching, in fact it mirrors Anas position on US/UK middle eastern policy. Bookends that is what you both are put Anas on one end and Bert on the other and thats the spectrum of opinion.
All that money spent on securing oil and Iraq is still an oil importing nation.
How about apologising for calling Anas a terrorist Sonia? Thats beyond the pale and I must say that it is out of character for you.
And you’re utterly wrong on 3 of the 4 counts, as the WMD one depends on your definition of what constitutes WMD.
Bert were you asleep when it was revealed that there was no WMD found. Or is an IED now a WMD?
This is descending into sophistry. Desperate. Bert this is the type of thing that Anas comes up with when he is in a tight spot.
Naive? You been there? Was I naive in Bosnia too? Damn foolishness, should’ve left ‘em to their sectarian violence. May the best man win, eh?
Your naive because you think the war was about bringing democracy to one of the worlds largest petrol stations.
Re: WMD.
It depends on whether you think we should have gone for Saddam on the grounds they were in brech of treaties over what weapons they were permitted to have. They weren’t permitted to have anything that could range Israel - for obvious reasons. And they did. So they broke the treaty.
Whether they had an NBC capability to stick on those rockets? Turned out they didn’t. But were I an Israeli, taking into account Saddam’s past records, I’d not have been overly inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
See?
Bosnia got democracy, of a sort. You’d have said I was racist had I said the same could not be achieved with Arabs.
Post 43 more sophistry here was I thinking that WMD was chemical,biological and nuclear weapons.
Don’t put words in my mouth. RE post 44.
#45 Yes, it is. But the difficulty is the delivery systems, and Saddam had that down pat. Putting nasty things in them is child’s play. See the chaos caused by the anthrax dude in the US.
#46 Sorry, don’t mean to put words in your mouth. But had I said prior to the invasion something along the lines of “Ha! Might’ve worked in Bosnia but they’re Euro-muslims. As if you can get Arabs to run a democracy *snort*” I feel fairly sure I’d have been made to feel rather unwelcome.
Bert he didn’t have the nasty things.
Please stop projecting your anti-arab racism on to me. I have not forgotten that you supported the torture of arabs at Guamtanamo bay.
I do believe that the Iraqis who have assisted/collaborated with US?UK troops should be granted asylum. The French gave asylum to their harki’s after the Algerian war so why not our Iraqis?
If the nasty things could be obtained by the anthrax dude, there’s no doubt they could be obtained by a state actor.
I don’t remember condoning torture at Guantanamo? Just detention. Did you see the Taleban commander they let out, the one who blew himself up rather than be recaptured two days back? I would condone torture by the way, but it’s absolutely pointless if it’s not done within 48 hours of lifting the bad guy. After that his mates know you’ve got him and everything changes. But if it gives you a lift then yes, Bert condones torture and is thus evil verily.
I’m damned glad to see we agree when we stay on topic though, those who have worked for us merit our assistance in every way and if that means bringing them here then fine. If they don’t want to come we should still help them out with a lump sum to the value of. Least we can do. Get behind them.
Condone torture. Better read A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954-62 because you don’t understand anything about torture.
The Anthrax dude probably worked in a US government lab. I do hope the bastard licked the envelope before he posted it. So why raise the issue of the “Anthrax dude”? they don’t sell that stuff in your local pharmacy. Any more lame arguments?
Ah yes, a book will teach me all about torture. Sure it will.
And I use the anthrax thing as an example. Saddam had retained the capability to make chemical weapons - just he hadn’t bothered making them. You know why? It’s because in 1991 he learned they were useless. They failed to scare us off, and his own commanders in the field were too frightened to use them. Either from a lack of confidence in the manufacturing techniques, or more likely the outrageous reprisals they would have faced.
When I was there it was NBC drills hourly, and believe you me had any fucker been arsewit enough to use them on us the reprisals would most certainly have been outrageous. No officers of that division would have been permitted to escape, and they knew it. Any trying to surrender would have regretted it, and they knew that too.
They’re perhaps not quite as naive as your good self?
Torture doesn’t work. It cost the French Algeria even if it helped them win the Battle of Algiers.
Bert, Confessing to a propensity for War crimes as well. My what a charming fellow you are.
Do you have a moral compass Bert? Then again it alway Tu quoque with you.
Democracy, torture and war crimes, yet you want asylum for collaboraters/allies of the UK army? Yet you would happily turn away victims of torture who claim asylum.
“I can’t see why anti-war people could be against this. I’m trying to push the suspicion to the back of my mind that it’s gloating or each death is ammunition to the cause.”
Not exactly a humanist but most certainly a hypocrite. Stick your concern for these poor bastards up your arse its insincere and you know it.
Wow, Zinwin I have to say your level of debating and arguments have improved immensely since you first started posting on PP. Am agreeing with pretty much everything you said on this thread.
All depends on your definition or torture. As I said, handing people over to ‘interrogators’ for the professional tickling up is a waste of time - by the time they get there and the information gets back it’s worthless. Things move fast.
On the other hand if I capture 2 militants and smash one’s teeth out, then the other will likely tell me where the rest of his lads are. So I can hit them before they hit me. When people are captured after an assault they’re terrified enough that they’ll tell you whatever you want with no more than a good slap and some fine raging features. They know the score, that’s why they chose to get captured.
I don’t have time or need for car batteries, waterboarding or any of that unpleasantness - it may be necessary for people tied up in the espionage game but that’s not something that’s ever lit my candle. In cold blood I couldn’t do it unless I had some personal issue with them. It’s just not in me.
Those who do get involved well, I believe they can’t often claim to be innocent victims. Though I admit there are groups who use torture on sectarian grounds which means it’s purely for fun, and those are people I’d kill without a moment’s hesitaion whenever given the opportunity. You know, make the world a better place and all that. Those are also the people threatening the Iraqis who worked for us. What do they hope to gain from torture, exactly?
And I’ve checked the UN lists of those wanted for war crimes, and I’m not on it. Unlucky mate. maybe soon?
You’re right in that what I’m saying doesn’t make me a humanist, but then I never claimed to be. But it don’t make me a hypocrite either.
Bert,
You say:
“I would condone torture by the way, but it’s absolutely pointless if it’s not done within 48 hours of lifting the bad guy.”
You do realise that there is a huge assumption there, like you actually have lifted the bad guy? And not some farmhand?
‘Tis a slippery slope Bert. Obviously if it’s sauce for the goose, it’ll be sauce for the gander too.
Which other aspects of the Middle Ages would you like to see back? I’m sure I could make a list.
Douglas - I know who I’ve lifted because he’ll have been shooting at me a few minutes previous. That’s the nice thing about being infantry, it’s the clean end of the fight. Not up to me to say which villagers are bad guys and which couldn’t care.
Bert,
That is battlefield heat of the moment stuff. Please do not mix that up with the torture we know and love.
Which seems to started with the Yanks offering huge bribes for people to ’snitch’, which they did and a lot of innocent people were consequently lifted. It’s money talking, really.
The last time I looked 14,000 odd folk had been ‘rendered’ to regiemes that are not as squeamish as our own. That, sir, is someone making a political point, or sending a message. It has absolutley nothing to do with intel.
That’s the exact distinction I’m trying to get across. What happens on the battlefield is accepted by all concerned, whereas what happens in Abu Ghraib is appalling stuff carried out by ’soldiers’ who never fix bayonets and are held in nothing but the utmost contempt by those who do. They may think that in going to jail they’ve paid for their crimes but they’ve paid jack shit - it’s the infantry who pay.
The Yanks did indeed offer bounties for known Taleban but the keyword there is ‘known’ - if your name wasn’t on their wanted list then your accuser was invited in to receive his payment and staggered out with his teeth in his hat after. Then you were let go. Well served. No one was wasting resources on farmers or militiamen unless they’d been fingered by a reliable source. Of course not all such sources may have been as reliable as we liked, but the exercise outed a lot of the unreliable ones too. Worthwhile I’d say, and not money talking.
I don’t know much about rendition, but going on those I’ve read about who were on the receiving end I’ve yet to see one that made me think ‘woah, what was he doing there?’. Doubtless they exist mind, and sadly we probably haven’t heard about the innocents as it was far easier to kill them. Which is why I’ve not lent my support to extraordinary renditions.
None of you have any right to pass judgment from your English and Scottish armchairs on the choices of people living in conditions that you cannot begin to imagine.
These “collaborators” are people who took jobs that were available because they had families to feed. Who the hell are any of you to label that “morally unacceptable”?
It is interesting how the US and UK are always blamed for 650,000 Iraqi deaths, when it appears to be the Sunni insurgents and Shia death militias that are doing the killing. It was the invasion that led to this situation, but with that logic it could be argued that the only reason why there were so many casualties in WW2 was because of the Allies’ decision to fight Hitler.
The problem with the torture you are describing Bert Preast is that, as ZinZin said, it is a very slippery slope. However, you seem to be one of the few commentators on here that has not taken the attitude that if you work with UK/US forces you are somehow deserving of death.
yes Katy absolutely, thanks for pointing that out, i didn’t manage to get it across in my post, ( i was too annoyed some folks were displaying no empathy ) but the fact that they are stuck in these bombed out no jobs places, who the hell is able to judge them for their actions - hardly as if they have/had a whole bunch of wholesome choices. given no one else was paying anyone to work, ( apart from the ‘terrorists’ or insurgents or whoever) what can we expect?
And this is back to the point of the chaos war causes. if none of you have had the misfortune to be in one, you aren’t going to know the desperation and the complete mess it creates. the situation becomes each man for himself type thing - precisely why people like me keep saying war even for ’so-called humane’ reasons is never humane in the end! it forces too many difficult actions on people and there are consequences. i wouldn’t wish these things onto even my worst enemy.
(i mean for goodness sakes a flood in berkshire and they’re looting.)
it would be nice if this realisation meant we were finally going to do something about the whole/wider Iraq situation - that is what we should make sure we don’t keep schtum about. that we make sure people KNOW ( and later generations!) what the human cost of this f**king ‘hearts and minds’ and democracy project carried out with weapons and tanks.
thank you sid! but as i have found myself stuck in a war, but luckily for me i got out, so i feel even worse for having the insight.
anas -
“Personally I’m not too moved by their plight”
how positively unfeeling. you should be just as moved by their plight as anyone else’s plight - all the people dead, and you know what? living stuck in a warzone is a living hell. you should be just as much moved as much you might be moved by any palestinian/any human on this earth.
oh sorry - in my post no. 22 - i didn’t clarify - it was the US government who had the cheek to start billing people for evacuating them from Kuwait in August 1990 - not the British or Canadian governments ( who were clearly far more sensible).
this poor person i’ve spoken with whom it happened to - might end up spending a huge amount of money on this when they thought they were getting evacuated for free! $46,000 they were quoted…
i’m disgusted at this talk of torture being ok. vbert?
( thank goodness other people have more sense)
NO IT F***ING ISN’T !
and you know what - it never works either. just screws a lot of people up. include the interrogators i might add.
i can’t believe the state of the world still -that some people think that’s ok and that they can say it just as if it isn’t the same as announcing one is practially a psycopath with ZERO empathy - and we THINK WE’RE CIVILISED? why not just throw the towel in, get the gloves off, and show our fangs, and be done with.
Great posts from Sonia, completely agree. For those who don’t want to sign the petition, think about the many Iraqis who had to help torture and maintain the state apparatus of the Baathist party because there were few options at that time. Did that make them evil? Maybe or maybe not. That’s the twisted things about war and tyrannical regimes. Who are we to judge the actions of people trying to feed their family. Why don’t we actually judge the suicide bomber who blows up average IRAQIS in the market place, including women and children. Should we feel more sympathy for them?
Sonia:
Bert’s posts were hardly a defence of torture. He condemns cold-blooded/planned torture, and extraordinary rendition. All he was saying was that in the heat of the battle, soldiers will sometimes get a bit rough with their captured enemies in order to unlock information that will save them and their friends’ lives. It obviously is not ideal, but when you are surrounded by people trying to kill you and your friends, you are not going to be worried if you have to break a few teeth in order to save lives.
All your other posts were excellent, mind.
sahil, during the ‘baathist’ regime - like it or not, the situation was not a war one - ordinary people kept their head down - yes it was repressive, but it was completely different to the situation now. people had jobs like being museum curators, doctors, engineers, etc. Straight after the Allies went in, i think you’ll find that most people lost their jobs. so it was completely a different situation - that’s my point, yes its not to say people don’t have to make difficult choices in non-war time ( and i don’t believe in ‘evil’ anyway, i think its a silly religious construct) but it is Different in out and out war. of course if you haven’t got experience of war i can’t expect you to understand that.
well perhaps i misunderstood what bert was saying ( sorry if that’s the case old pertie..) but its silly to use terms like ‘torture’ which never happens in the heat of battle anyway, and certainly it is not ordinary soldiers who are left with the task of ‘interrogation’ - everyone knows that.
and i think that if one is sending soldiers into battle - thinking that’s ok - then of course it is stupid to turn around when that soldier does something awful in the course of war - that’s what happens, and that’s why i’ve always said No Wars thanks because you’re sending someone straight into a situation and i don’t believe that war commanders don’t know full well the kind of crazy pressure they are putting their soldiers in.
my points are very simple: if people want to engage in war, then they need to think very clearly and simply before they go in, about what that reality is - for civilians who are under attack, the soldiers who are having to attack and also under threat of attack, for everyone.
no one wins in the end - absolutely everyone ‘loses’. it ain’t good for anyone.
Sonia I agree, that’s why I said war and tyrannical regimes. They create different scenarios and both scenarios are amongst the worst people can suffer from. I’m simply saying that before the build up of the war, many people had argued that all (except the ‘bosses’) ex-civil servants must be pardoned for the crimes that they committed during the Baathist regime. That’s why I find people who are not sympathetic to the current civil service hypocritical. The current situation in Iraq is complete mayhem, and you’re right I do not have clue as to how one would survive in that environment, and that’s why I’m in support of the idea: that ANY Iraqi should have the right to settle in the UK and the ‘coalition of the willing’ states.
Lets keep some perspective here:-
- At least 1 million dead (probably more, but we never took body count statistics, did we?)
- At least 1 million homeless (those huge tent cities in the desert? They weren’t there before)
- Completely flattened infrastructure (roads, water pipes, schools (ffs!), electricity)
- Massive brain drain after proffesionals were being assasinated (where is the hope for the future generations?)
- Daily suicide bombings, murders, reprisals
- People scared to go out on the street to retrieve or check bodies because of explosive booby traps
- Prospect of further war ahead…
Particularly @Bert, at what point here does anyone believe that anything that has happened in Iraq is for the better. Do we take the politicians’ view point and close our eyes and picture an enlightened modern state in the next 50 to 70 years? And thats it? Deal with the reality. Nothing that has happened in Iraq has been good for the country since the UK/US invaded and illegaly occupied it.
I feel sorry for those who have worked with the UK government because they did what they had to, and I doubt they did it out of any love for the occupying forces and their idealistic ‘crusade’. I feel sorry because there is no way that the UK will bring all of them to safety (maybe only the talented ones they can exploit for intelligence work), as it will open the floodgates for hundreds of thousands more to ask for the same.
People who think this war was justified IMO, should be hiding under the biggest rock in the deepest cave they can find, such is the scale of human tragedy and suffering that it has caused. Unfortunately, their services are required by Big Oil and the Developed World for now…
Random Guy - I’ve never said this war has made things better for Iraqis. It quite clearly hasn’t. Hopefully we’ll learn from our mistakes - and so will the anti war lads. Looking back, had Saddam been walloped by a Tomahawk as he stood in front of the cheering crowds firing his rifle into the air whoever fired the missile would have been pilloried in the international community for the few hundred civilian deaths such a strike would have caused. Bloody cheap price to pay with hindsight though.
Who’s anti war yet would have supported such an act?
If all Iraqis, Afghanistanis, Palestinians and Iranians were wiped off the planet by the USA tomorrow, some of you would say: Let’s not get too bogged down by who’s at fault. The important thing is that we help rebuild these countries and for that, we have to look to the USA for support…
Kismet-LOL
Kismet, don’t be so cynical.
We went to war for, amongst many other things, establishing American Freedom and European Enlightenment values in Iraq.
Now that they have them, they all want to come here? Typical!
Bert, it was never the UK/US’s business to be in Iraq in the first place. I would not condone a single act of war by an agressor if it killed even one innocent civilian. Any agressor, any war. So the tomahawk suggestion leaves me very confused. Your position is that the US/UK can go and just fire a tomahawk at the ruler of another country? I am flabbergasted at that.
Also, ‘looking back’ does not cut it. If they had wanted to, the US and UK could have mounted a much more surgical strike to kill Saddam. But then the entire international community would correctly call them out for the terrorists they were. This whole expensive logistic operation served a very different purpose: -
(a) send a message to the region
(b) cover an illegal action by making it look like a legitimate good guy/bad guy WW2 scenario.
(c) massive troop presence to protect the rapidly diminishing oil reserves. Have you seen the new American Embassy blueprints for Baghdad? I suggest you google it.
The truth is that in hindsight, the only thing the UK/US would do differently would be perhaps to use more explosive ordnance and depleted uranium, had they known just how much resistance they would find.
Sid, the west never learns. First they went all over the world killing people in the name of civilisation, then democracy, and now to purge them of terror, and everytime they want to leave, the natives go: where are you going? We’re coming with you
Yes, and don’t forget, the war failed because of the intransigence and backwardness of the Iraqi People who failed to seize the opportunity of having Western values thrust upon so generously. Makes me wonder whether Winston Churchill, who advocated gassing Arabs, wasn’t right to begin with. sheeeh!
Did we have business there when he invaded Kuwait? Random, had he not invaded his neighbours we’d have had no business there at all, and no one would have cared. But he did.
And the UK and US undoubtedly had many plans to assasinate him surgically, the fact that it didn’t happen shows that it couldn’t be done. Had we got him, the usual suspects would’ve moaned about state terrorism yes, but I don’t reckon many would have listened to them.
And the US needs an embassy that has a radius greater than that of a mortar strike. Our base in Basra is currently taking over 10 rockets and bombs a day for that reason.
Not sure what you mean with your last paragraph?
“If they had wanted to, the US and UK could have mounted a much more surgical strike to kill Saddam.”
All those James Bond and Hollywood spy movies are all lies, lies, lies. British/ US intelligence can’t sneak in and kill anyone in the dead of the night with a silencer
Which is why, my deep political insight can exclusively reveal, in the real world, they need big bombs and tanks and stuff and kill loads of people in the hope they might kill someone that might need killing
Only difference between war movies and wars is that less people die in the movies
Bert, you and Nick Cohen are so fucking in the right, it’s untrue.
Sid, the gas Churchill advocated was CN, the forerunner of today’s CS. Today we even use it on hippies and no one minds.
Dead hippies, dead Arabs. Do you care?
They’re not dead, just rather unimpressed with air quality.
And believe it or not, I’m a hippy.
I don’t think anyone wants anyone to be dead, do they? Argh, where is this thread going?
(That’s true. CS gas isn’t lethal. It’s not nice, though.)
Katy, you’re so right. After all, they dropped marshmallows on Fallujah, didn’t they.
It’s that 80 posts thingy again.
“had he not invaded his neighbours we’d have had no business there at all, and no one would have cared.”
Same with that Adolph chap with his lebensraum fixation
When will these stupid so-called dictator learn that you can’t just go into a country and kill people just because you don’t like them?
God bless America. They only do that when they’ve been provoked and even then, they only target those countries responsible. Like when a bunch of Saudis board planes and go on a kamikaze mission
@Bert: My last paragraph meant that the US/UK would have used even greater force if they had been aware of the scale of resistance they would find.
You bring up Kuwait. Interesting one that. They f**ked up that time as well. Bert, the US and UK have never had business in that region, apart from the oil business.
The US Embassy in Iraq does need to be big enough, but my points regarding it are actually more along the lines of the scale of the building and the rationale behind it - definitely a long term prospect. “We are here to stay! We need to rape your country’s oil reserves.”
@Kismet: By surgical strike I did not mean any James Bond shenanigans. I did not meant aything in particular tbh, just anything apart from a mass-scale military occupation.
This entire debate reminds me, rather tragically, of a post some time ago on CiF by Conor Foley, where he pointed out that when International Relief Agencies felt that a situation had got too dangerous, their local staff ot partners were left to their own devices when they withdrew. Usually that meant being left to the wolves.
I do not agree that it ‘opens floodgates’. There is presumeably a payroll somewhere, if your name is on it, then you and your family should be protected. It is inhumane to do otherwise.
The UK can surely do what the Danes did?
RG, I know (re: James Bond). But wouldn’t it be nice to live in a world where bad guys get killed by good guys and succeed without killing all the random guys in the way instead…
I got CS’d out of my own classroom once. First teaching job, should have taken it as a warning.
There seems to have developed a sense that because the US/UK governments were wrong to invade then those Iraqis on the ground who have chosen to help rebuild the mess have somehow signed up to an evil agenda and if the insurgents get hold of them, tough shit.
Random, sorry, still not with you. Are you referring to the Iraqi military resistance or the current situation with the militias? I’ll assume you mean the latter, in which case in what way would we have used greater force and why haven’t we?
How was Kuwait a fuck up? Should we have left it to sanctions to get him out?
For the embassy it should look solid. The violence is increasing because no one in Iraq expects the US or us to be there for much longer. Our usual short-sightedness again defeated by their patience and long term view. Not sure how it’s all about raping oil reserves though - I’m no economist but even I can see that it’s a lot cheaper just to buy the stuff.
Katy, you’re so right. After all, they dropped marshmallows on Fallujah, didn’t they.
I was talking about people on this thread. Do I look like a moron?
I do
Bert, I am going to try and get back on topic so will answer briefly. Yes I was talking about the militias. Greater Force = Less Resistance = More Troops initially. Kuwait set stage for this current period. AAARGH you no get it still…WE have nothing to do with him, never had. Embassy Size proportional to Occupation time. Oil reserve problem not monetary but supply related.
@Kismet: LOL at the ‘Random’ comment.
Okay, I am done with that (possibly hilarious) answering session.
@Douglas: what is the scale of what the Danes did compared to the scale of what the UK will have to do? I am assuming that the UK may be responsible for many more than the Danes? Not sure.
Don, the Iraqi’s looking for asylum now are probably deeply unpopular in their own country. The death threats alone mean they need to be given asylum in either USA or UK. But the damage done to Iraqi society as a result of war goes deeper than a handful of Iraqis working for the coalition. Would you be OK with providing asylum to the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have suffered as a result of death, dislocation and emotional damage? And if not, why not?
I’d say what we’re proposing here is comparable in scale to what the Danes have done. It’ll be 10 times the number but then we have 10 times the population.
And many times the accountability.
Sid,
I’d be in favour of giving asylum to anyone specifically targeted. I would guess that those affected by the widespread suffering are more likely to number in the millions, so while I take your point in principal it couldn’t happen in practice.
How sure are we that these people are deeply unpopular and seen as collaborators by the general population, as distinct from the insurgents? Is this based on anything, or just projecting?
Are they being considered for asylum simply because they worked with coalition soldiers and no other reason? I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure they’re regarded as collaborators. I have no idea whether collaborators are regarded with suspician or if they are showered with flowers and sweetmeats by the average Iraqi.
What a mess. Harry’s Place, main left apologists for the war, do you think they feel any moral culpability for any of this, or have they steeled their hearts, and are in the biggest state of denial in the blogosphere.
Yesterday I read that Iraq’s football team had reached the final of the Asian Cup for the first time ever, and thousands of people took to the streets in jubilation to celebrate. And suicide bombers exploded a couple of cars in a crowd of celebrating football fans killing dozens.
Jagdeep:
They posted this appeal before Pickled Politics did (not a criticism Sunny).
So what you are saying is that it is the US/UK’s fault that suicide bombers are murdering Iraqis?
You’re blaming that on the US and UK?
No Bert. That was written more in sorrow at the tragedy of that country, than as a counterpoint to the denial and moral turpitude of the Harry’s Place tendency who war mongered at that time.
Although a central plank of the reasoning, articulated by Andrew Sullivan amongst others, and presumably endorsed by Harry’s Place at some stage, was that invading Iraq would create a ‘honey trap’ for jihadis, from whence they could be picked off and the ’swamp could be cleared’. Let’s just imagine for a moment that this was to happen — it meant that prior to the invasion, the warriors were actually inviting terrorist to come to Iraq, without actually considering that they would unleashe their hell on the Iraqi people, despite everything that everyone said. The callousness of that was quite breathtaking.
Although I wonder — the failure to secure the country and prevent these attacks under American / British jurisdiction. If the Harry’s Place Sahibs and the war leaders wanted to take the credit for all the good things that they anticipated would happen after the invasion, why don’t they take the credit for the bad things that have happened to the Iraqi people, including not providing the security for celebrating football fans?
Harry’s Place, after all, have never produced a post explaining any sense of introspection on this matter. so you must presume they still believe they were right to support it, even though their boss and gaffer Norman Geras repented publically. Big time DENIAL.
Bert, @100. I’d have assumed similar figures to you.
Jagdeep:
There has been plenty of criticism on HP of the failure of the coalition to provide enough security for Iraqis. Just look at this very appeal. What you were implying in your previous post was not only that the coalition had failed to provide those football fans with protection, but that it was the coalition that was responsible for their deaths. I think that the suicide bombers bear more responsibility.
Oh for goodness sake Rumbold, we all know that the suicide bombers bear direct responsibility for the people that they kill.
My mentioning the most recent atrocity was a plaintive lament for the horror that Iraq is. Dozens of people killed as they celebrate a football result. What a horrific tragedy. Maybe next time I will put a crying smilie to indicate what I mean.
Harry’s Place may have uhmmed and ahhhed about this or that aspect of things, but they have never written a introspective mea culpa for their support for the war.
It was just the way you worded it Jagdeep. Sorry.
The Iraq war has turned out to be a terrible decision, thanks to the incompetence of Washington and the viciousness of the Sunni terrorists and Shia death militias. Hindsight is always a wonderful thing, but based on the evidence available at the time of the invasion, I and many others believed that it was the right thing to do; we could not know that the US would make such a terrible mess of running the country. What purpose then would a mea culpa serve?
No need to apologise Rumbold, I don’t ever want to have bad words with you *thumbs up*
That’s the internet though sometimes it’s hard to read what people say.
An apology was in order Jagdeep. I know that you are a sensible individual, and I was just being belligerent. (Yellow smiley face).
Jagdeep - I supported the war, but have written no mea culpa because I don’t feel culpable. The vast part of the violence in Iraq is Iraqi on Iraqi, due to a breakdown in law and order giving deep seated sectarian hatreds and mistrusts a chance to do their worst. We are not exacerbating these tensions as are some other countries in the region, and had Iraqi religious leaders not called for opposition then our troops would be gone by now and those leaders could have got on with the task of fighting amongst themselves for the main prize in earnest.
This isn’t the war I supported - some of the US actions have been shameful or downright stupid. I favoured going in, defeating the Iraqi military then killing or capturing all the high level Baathists we could lay hands on, and had Saddam done his snurgling off bit, as he did, then burn all his toys we could lay hands on. Then get out again. Take Hope Grant’s mission into China as the model if you like. And at the end of the day Saddam, not a warry lefty cabal, was to blame for the war - all he had to do was leave Iraq as we demanded.
I’m speaking for myself rather than HP here by the way, I’ve probably not made more than 50 posts over there so have no right to say what they’re thinking.
The Iraq war has turned out to be a terrible decision, thanks to the incompetence of Washington and the viciousness of the Sunni terrorists and Shia death militias.
Sleight of Hand alert: “incompetence of Washington” elides the barbarity of cluster bombs, high-tech arsenals, state of the art killing machinery is benign whereas Iraqi resistance (irrespective of patrician spin) to the slaughter of their people is “vicious”.
I’d be in favour of giving asylum to anyone specifically targeted. I would guess that those affected by the widespread suffering are more likely to number in the millions, so while I take your point in principal it couldn’t happen in practice.
If destroying a region for its oil is possible in practice, surely responsibility towards the victims either as asylum seekers or simply as refugee-victims of the war is comensurate with the of spreading Liberal Enlightenment values that were supplied as a motive by our governments.
Good queston. Maybe mea culpa is the wrong term to use. I don’t think that people should be contrite or wring their hands over every little thing that they got wrong; for a start I get things wrong as much as anyone.
But this is not a little thing.
The enormity of the catastrophe of Iraq seems to me to need at least some explanation for positions held on it. It is the defining issue of our time, the defining issue and tone setter for the start of the 21st Century. We don’t even know how big the implications of it are because it is so much in ferment, the map has not settled, the ethnic and religious balance has been so changed, that we’re probably only at the beginning of it all. The wrecking of international relations, the mistrust of America and to a lesser extent Britain, the moral implications of it, even to the idea of ‘ethical and legitimate foreign intervention’, are so great that you would hope those who got it wrong understand why, and what they can learn, and how they can deal with the current situation.
This is not Shambo the Bull or whether import restrictions should be lifted on Kenyan coffee imports. This is the biggest mistake of our generation. I just feel it needs more than cut and pasting appeals for asylum seekers in response.
By the way, I think Harry’s Place does sterling work in opposing extremist ideology in the UK. Especially David T, who is a good chap. This makes it an even bigger shame they got it so wrong on the war. But I think they got things mixed up in an internecine struggle on the Left against the lunatics who by default side with jihadis, all that anti-imperialism rhetoric covering up their true agenda. They saw Iraq as the canvas on which that battle would be settled. And they got it wrong. It was possible to oppose both those people, and the war itself.
Sid:
There have been examples of US brutality, such as Abu Gharib and cluster bombs, but it is the incompetence that has really done the damage to the whole country. I would not compare US forces to the ‘insurgents/militias’, as, for the most part, when the US kill civilians it is an accident or collateral damage. When the ‘insurgents/militias’ kill civilians, it is a triumph for them. I do not see a moral equivilence here.
Not all Pro-War Lefties are stupid, mealy-mouthed cowards.
Rumbold, so cluster-bombing and killing by warfare is a noble necessity that is beyond accountability?
Good points Jagdeep (117). I think that it is vital to see where we (as a country, as a civilization) have gone wrong with regards Iraq, and learn lessons for the future. If Harry’s Place did this, it would be great; it is just that I do not see too much point in an apology, as, based on the evidence at the time, plenty thought that it was the right thing to do.
Sid - beyond accountability? Think you’ll find investigations and apologies were made.
There was some programme on TV last year (I think it was on More4) which stated that apparently Al-Qaeda had “planted” false information into Western intelligence circles via captured terrorists regarding Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons capability and agenda, with the intention of deliberately triggering an American-lead invasion of Iraq in order to destabilise the region and escalate the “jihad”. OBL was supposed to have planned this all along. Apparently.
Me:
I do not like it when the US or UK kill civilians. My point was that there are differences in terms of intent between coalition forces in Iraq and the terrorists/death squads.
Rumbold — maybe I use Harry’s Place generically as an example for those not of the Right who threw their lot in with the neo-cons. It’s quite amazing that people like Arronovitch and Nick Cohen could accuse everyone opposed to the war as apologists for the Islamist Right. Some of them were and are — most were not. It would have been trickier and more difficult to walk that line of opposing the war while simultaneously condemning those who apologise for suicide bombing, make pacts with anti-semites, and all the rest of it that is shown in the Lenin’s Place tendency. But they took the bull in the china shop route, by fully endorsing those who the Lenin’s Place-ites opposed because of their repulsion at the compromises that section of the Left made with the extremists. It was almost like in the heat of the moment, those months leading up to the war, they were filled with fury themselves, and lost perspective. I think by doing this, they compromised themselves.
I was just thinking about how desensitised we have become about Iraq, even the recent bombings of footballs supporters didn’t get any airtime, and I thought about this music video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hii17sjSwfA&mode=related&search=
I suppose that there was a bit of that Jagdeep; I see your point.
Think you’ll find investigations and apologies were made.
by whom?
it’ll be another generation before the full extent of the blame of the Iraqi atrocity is fully countenanced by the west.
I do not like it when the US or UK kill civilians. My point was that there are differences in terms of intent between coalition forces in Iraq and the terrorists/death squads.
yeah, some of the killers are tall white guys and others are small, swarthy darkies.
So I am a racist now eh Sid?
Sunni insurgents plant bombs or blow themselves up in order to cause the maximum carnage possible. They consider it a job well done when they can say that they murdered 100 Iraqis today. Shia death militias seek out their victims, usually torturing them for the sake of it before executing them.
Coaltion forces are not perfect, but they do not start the day with the aformentioned aims in mind. That is the difference.
Must I remind you of Fallujah?
As I said before Sid, there have been acts of barbarity, and I have never tried to excuse them. But the insurgents/militias go out to commit barbarous acts everyday, a fact which you seem unwilling, or unable, to grasp. When you see that dozens of Iraqis have been murdered everyday, or that the morgues are overflowing with civilians’ bodies, remember that it was not the Americans who killed them.
Rumbold, I admire your attempts at spin, but excuse me if I see it as the kind of doubletalk pushed on us by people who talk out of the sides of their mouths, like Nick Cohen and the not-so-beliigerant-anymore Harry’s Place etc. Give it up man, it doesn’t suit your otherwise broad outlook.
you’ll be telling me Bernard Manning wasn’t a racist comedian, next.
Taking a sidestep to a more theoretical plain for a moment, do you agree that intent is important? E.g. If I ran you over, does it matter whether I meant to or not? In one sense, it does not matter, as you have still been flattened, but it should matter in terms of the seriousness of the crime, and the appropriate setencing.
That is my point; the Coalition, by and large, does not try and murder Iraqi civilians. Their enemies do. It is not mean to be spin, or sophistry.
Sid (134):
Ha ha. He certainly was racist. And unpleasant.
I’m thinking of starting a new facebook group:
BLAME THE WAR ON IRAQ ON IRAQIS
I can see I’ll have plenty of punters.
Rumbold, without the help of the US and the UK, those insurgents would not be out there in the first place. Do you disagree?
The vast majority of deaths are caused by Iraqi killing Iraqi (or foreign Islamists killing Iraqis). Do you dispute this?
yep.
Random Guy:
I cannot see what would happen in an alternate universe; I am not a counter-factual historian. They probably would not be there, but that is like saying that the Versailles Treaty (and therefore the French) is to blame for the Holocaust because it led to the rise of the Nazis who tried to kill all the Jews.
No, what you’re saying is the Jews were responsible for the Holocaust.
Or worse: if there weren’t so many Roma, homosexuals and cripples, there wouldn’t be as many as six million dead in the Holocaust.
Sid:
In the past few weeks you have accused me of being:
-An avid supporter of Mao’s regime
-A racist
-Someone who celebrates all American brutality in Iraq
And now I see that I believe that the Jews were responsible for the Holocaust. Would it be possible for you to write all your insults in one post, as I am sure that it would save the both of us some time.