Of Diplomacy and Nationalism: How We Argue Inside Our Own Borders

I'd like to second that. Thanks.

US domestic and foreign policy in the war on terror has been an insanity which has benefitted only the terrorists, totalitarians within the US government, and the arms and oil industries, and has cost the world and the US dearly. The American people and more especially the media have been unwilling to criticise this. It's time this was clearly stated, as you've done above.

I'd like to third that :) Unfortunately, emotional appeal has always been the hidden factor in any debate. The political programming of the masses by both parties will take an act of God to negate.

If you keep on writing these articles, maybe you'll be part of the spark that starts it all :)

And a fourth; well said Celestina. You do a beautiful job of balancing the empirical with emotional.

You know as soon as Karl Rove sees that snowball rolling down the hill he'll start three of his own.

D'oh. Nicely put, Celestina.

Mind if we call you Bruce to keep things cleah?

No kidding - very well said. What an extraordinary turn of a phrase. (Not to mention the rest of the article). Celestina, you're not only one of my favorite writers, you're one of my heroes. Thanks!

I would (in a normal and LR traditional way) be all over you in refuting this to kingdom come. But not now, (and what I have to keep striving for) not anymore. As Celestinas articles and gentle ways have taught me on several occasions, I have yet again looked back at some very naughty things that I have been throwing at those with whom I did not agree and often ended up verbally fighting with. So here is my trial for a new way. If this is what you believe after been seeing all the evidence to the contrary, then please, be my guest and keep up the spin which in your case might be the reality based truth. I in other hand, will stand firm in believing that it was all just a chance hand of cards at the usual Bush poker table. A hand of cards taken, tried, believed upon and thrown in with the hope of a winning pot as the gain. But which (in my reality) is seen upon as being nothing more then the One chance which by the fact of truth, showed up a bit empty.

Now we have ended back at this articles main issue,

Oddly, however, it seems that in the U.S. our need to justify our actions makes it imperative that we dispute even the most solid evidence that our actions may have had disastrous results.

The beauty in it all is that a truly free nation makes the honored choice in letting people like you and I who are of different opinions in some issues to have the same right in expressing them. So, thanks for expressing your views.

And to you dear Celestina, Thanks for yet another fantastic piece to be added to many others of yours. And I know that you will be keeping them coming. At least that is what I, and what I sense many others with me are wishing for. Have the best of times with your loved ones and remember,

"We can all make a difference, no matter how many of us that difference might need to make the change."

Liberal Rebel,

let me say that I agree with each and every one of Celestina's points, and am not seeking to justify a complete cock up based on this one point

Sorry, what part of that did you not read? Now do you understand why I prefaced with:

before everyone jumps on me for being a war hawk

It's because people don't seem to actually READ other people's comments. Rather they see one little part and run with it.

What I want to know if there is a refutation to this guy's statement - either by fact, or by newsvine opinion (so an "I don't think this guy is credible, because...").

If this is what you believe after been seeing all the evidence to the contrary, then please, be my guest and keep up the spin which in your case might be the reality based truth.

Read my comment again and carefully. I did not say that I believed it to be the truth, I said:

Sada's statements gnaw away at the back of my mind

I resent you accusing me of spin. Sada is a potential eye-witness in this matter. All I want is Celestina's opinion, and other viners' opinions, on whether he is a reliable or unreliable one. That's it, that's all. I am curious and interested period end of story. I do not have a stance on it either way.

Quite honestly, I find your response to my comment quite rude.

Do you know that Hussein dismantled a number of chemical weapons in the years before 2002, and presented evidence to the UN before the invasion - and that the US claimed not to believe this evidence? Perhaps this was the reason for Sada's statement?

Hussein was aware that the US wanted an excuse to invade and was attempting to remove that excuse - but the US responded by fabricating evidence.

Thanks, Djehuty.

So, if I read you right, in the larger context while Sada's statement may be true, it may also be irrelevent to the current Iraq war when paired with the possibility those same WMDs may have been the same ones which were dismantled - approximate to UN demands. That's certainly food for thought.

I can't be sure, because I'm not sure about the time period of the WMDs he was talking about. The wikipedia article says

The United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi WMD throughout the 1990s in spite of persistent Iraqi obstruction. Iraq expelled weapons inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox, which further degraded Iraq's WMD capability. The United States and Britain, along with many intelligence experts, asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003, and that he must be prevented from building any more. Inspections restarted in 2002, but hadn't turned up any evidence of ongoing programs when the United States and the "Coalition of the Willing" invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein in the spring of 2003.

When Hussein finally delivered the complete report which the UN had asked for (which the US said was lies) it appeared that he had dismantled some weapons hurriedly so as to be able to comply with the requirements of the UN.

It's fair to say that there was certainly some doubt, but no one who had a handle on the situation believed the outrageous statements of the US about quantities and biological weapons in particular. Remember Powell holding up a vial of "anthrax" in the UN? and claims of attempts to secure nuclear weapons in Africa? It was clearly ludicrous to everyone who had been reading the real reports rather than just the credulous MSM. And in fact it was *known* to be in large part lies and the statements of expatriate Iraqis with something to gain by lying (Curveball) by the administration. The only question was whether there were a few cannisters of nerve gas hidden in the desert somewhere - which isn't world-shaking danger even to nearby countries like Israel, compared with the consequences of invasion.

If I sound upset about it it's because I think the neo-cons successfully pushed their own agenda (oil) rather than putting effort where it was more justified (North Korea).

Oh, I think you're right, the neocons most certainly pushed their own agenda in this. And I have no doubt if the admin wasn't lying outright, they were at the very least in grave error about the extent of WMDs in Iraq.

But, the way you are contextualizing things for me, I see that if Sada was telling the truth it still doesn't justify the war in Iraq because if there were WMDs they were in the quantities, or state of disassembly, that could have been dealt with by the UN. Which was my position at the beginning of the war - let the UN processes run their course. Sure they are long and arduous, but so is any process that takes into account those values which democratic society hold dear. It may be frustrating when they are applied to a guy like Saddam who clearly does not uphold those values... but that's part of taking the moral high ground - which I believe should be taken. I don't think the Iraq war, from an admin perspective, is anywhere near the moral high ground.

Thanks for the conversation, Djehuty, I appreciate your input.

Sada's statements are not credible. He was no longer in league with Saddam as at 2002. He'd been fired and was not in the know. There has been no corroboration of his statements. No satellite images showing weapons being moved. No records of those flights, No intelligence confirmation of them

The President of the United States unconditionally accepts that WMDs were not in Iraq. Why not you?

Thanks Erin, it's easy to become categorical and angry about it but I think the point you make is the most important - we should have followed the processes of what passes for democracy in the international sphere (the UN) and not been seduced by the uses to which the neo-cons put out loyalty and patroitism.

The President of the United States unconditionally accepts that WMDs were not in Iraq. Why not you?

I NEVER said that I believed that there were WMDs in Iraq. I said Sada's statements made me consider the possibility. Now through a very constructive and welcome conversation with Djehuty I've concluded, in my own mind, that whether Sada was telling the truth or lying is moot because if they were there, they weren't enough that the UN couldn't have dealt with the situation given time.

Oluseye, am I just being over sensitive, or does your question have a very finger-pointing tone to it? Because I do not believe that the question I have asked in any way justifies what is a clearly unjustifiable war in Iraq. Please don't say that you and LiberalRebel are trying to pigeon hole me into a neocon hole just as the neocons try and pigeon hole me into a liberal hole... because if you are it makes me very sad.

No problem Celestina. My dad has a saying - "Please give me a few moments to answer your question, as you've obviously had time to think about it before asking." I knew you would get to me when you could. :-)

I really do appreciate your articles - both for their logic and their fair tone. This is an issue that is so easy to become very worked up about... and rightly so. You do a very good job in remaining cool and collected in this crazy world of ours.

Ok ErinK, I am just a bit touchy about why these falsehoods won't stay debunked. Sorry if I was accusatory in tone.

Apology accepted.

It's a touchy subject in general. It's not an easy thing when you're fiercely opposed to something on moral and factual grounds and then suddenly those facts are called into question. If it's any consolation, my jaw pretty much hit the floor during that episode of the Daily Show. Hence the gnawing in the back of my mind that those statements caused. I did not like having to face the possibility that one of the most touted reasons for not supporting the Iraqi war (especially coming from a country who said "no thanks" to helping the US out with it) was suddenly called into question.

However, after this re-evaluation I can now with more confidence say that I still oppose the war on those grounds while still taking Sada's comments - whether they be truth or fiction - into account. There's nothing like having more solid ground to do battle on in the war of words that the general public now finds itself engaged in.

The proof is within the report itself, Survey teams asked for death certificates in 545 (87%) reported deaths and these were present in 501 cases. This means death certificates were found in 92% of the 87% of cases they were asked for. This means that there were death certificates for 80% of the sampled deaths. When they expand the sampled data to reach their final number, that rate of death certificates should remain stable. This means that there should be 524,000 death certificates if they used proper sampling methodology. However, the combined number of death certificates from all official sources is approximately 50,000. This is only one tenth of the certificates that should exist if the report was conducted properly.

The report itself even acknowledges the possibility of error in sampling,

Although interviewers used a robust process for identifying clusters, the potential exists for interviewers to be drawn to especially affected houses through conscious or unconscious processes. Although evidence of this bias does not exist, its potential cannot be dismissed.

It is also suspicious in that no other groups, pro-war, anti-war or those claiming objectivity have released studies with numbers anywhere close to these.

The Lancet Report

If the Johns Hopkins study were off say, by a factor of 20, and only 30,000 innocent Iraqis had been killed, would it actually make a difference? What if it were only 10,000? Is it the precise number that is so appalling, or is it simply that any innocents have been killed in the name of making America less safe and increasing the number of terrorists worldwide? How many Iraqi civilians is it worth to make America more hated than it has been? If 5,000 Iraqis have to die in order for Kellogg, Brown & Root to make a couple of hundred million American taxpayer dollars, are their deaths justified?

I understand the feeling that it is necessary to dispute any information which doesn't go to support ones worldview, I've had the same reaction myself from time to time. In this case, though, is it really about the inaccuracy of the figures, or is it about denying that the killing of innocent civilians is wrong?

Brad Farris, if you really want an answer try to ask some real questions. Instead this response is entirely empty rhetoric. All of your question are "push questions" if you will. They slant the argument to your side automatically. They are just as biased as if I asked you, "are you with George W. Bush or are you with the terrorists." The answer that you want is already in the question. If you have any serious questions then ask them, but leave the empty rhetoric at the door.

I understand, Adam, that those questions are uncomfortable for you. They are, nonetheless, exactly the questions you should be asking yourself, as should every American who has a bit of empathy. You don't think there are 655,000 dead Iraqi civilians? Fine. Tell me why it makes any difference how many there are. If it is important to you to dispute the figure, go ahead, make it as small as you want it. When you get done making it small, when you think it's small enough, tell me whether or not that number is too many.

Tell me that you think that America is safer because of those innocent dead Iraqis. Tell me that you think the number of terrorists has decreased because those innocent people are dead. Tell me that our military is as strong as it was before the invasion, and that it is optimally ready to confront a nation that actually does pose a threat to the United States, and that actually does possess nuclear weapons. If you can't say those things with a straight face, then don't talk to me about empty rhetoric.

The answer that you want is already in the question.

The answer that I want is your honest answer, Adam. If you honestly believe that it's worth it, then stand up and say so. If, on the other hand, you agree with the majority of Americans, and you realize that this thing is a train wreck, then climb down off of your high horse for a minute and just admit it.

Tell me that you think that America is safer because of those innocent dead Iraqis. Tell me that you think the number of terrorists has decreased because those innocent people are dead.

Yes I do think America is safer, though not because of dead innocent Iraqis. Remember, this number is not the number that we killed. Just the number that have died because of the invasion. Most of these deaths are due to sectarian violence. It is Iraqi killing Iraqi. Yes, we caused the situation where Iraqi was allowed to kill Iraqi (rather than just a few Iraqis oppressing the rest and killing a few here and there at will), but we did not force them to fight each other. That is their own choice.

Why is America safer? Because it is far easier to fight 100,000 enemies that we know, than it is to fight 1,000 enemies that we do not. If we were not in the Middle East, terrorists would be able to fully concentrate on terrorising the West. Instead their primary goal now is to fight for their lives in Iraq. We took the fight to Iraq rather than waiting for it to come to us.

Tell me that our military is as strong as it was before the invasion, and that it is optimally ready to confront a nation that actually does pose a threat to the United States, and that actually does possess nuclear weapons.

First, North Korea so far only possess non-working nuclear weapons. And second, it does not matter how strong our army was, it could be at 1985 levels, and there is still no chance whatsoever that we would attack North Korea. Attacking North Korea is an attack on China. The only way to deal with North Korea is to convince China to pressure them. There is no other solution.

Why is America safer? Because it is far easier to fight 100,000 enemies that we know, than it is to fight 1,000 enemies that we do not. If we were not in the Middle East, terrorists would be able to fully concentrate on terrorising the West. Instead their primary goal now is to fight for their lives in Iraq.

I'm sorry, Adam, but I'll have to respectfully disagree with every assertion there. Easier to fight 100,000 enemies that we know? What makes you think we "know" which 100,000 "enemies" we are fighting in Iraq? You may be confusing the situation in Iraq with a "real" war, in which it would be possible to "know" who the enemy is. In this clusterf*ck, we don't know who "the enemy" is unless they are actually in the process of shooting. Far easier? I don't think so.

If we were not in the Middle East, terrorists would be able to fully concentrate on terrorising the West.

What gives you that idea? How on earth do you know what terrorists are fully concentrating on now, or what they would "fully concentrate on" absent American troops in Iraq? Also, let's don't forget that those dead Iraqis you'd rather not think about factor in here, as well. Are Iraqis really more expendable than Americans?

We took the fight to Iraq rather than waiting for it to come to us.

I know you know better than that - there was no fight in Iraq until we got there. Would it make much sense for Russia to "take the fight against the Chechen rebels" to California? There are probably around the same number of Chechen rebels in California today as there were Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion. Again, remember that you started off here talking about how many innocent Iraqis had been killed in the invasion - do you really think it's fair to ask that innocent Iraqis die so that innocent Americans won't have to?

Most of these deaths are due to sectarian violence.

I realize that there is a civil war in progress, and would remind you that, like it or not, it was the misguided and immoral policies of President Bush and the neocons that created the conditions for that civil war. Nonetheless, since you haven't even settled on a figure with which you are comfortable, I'm not sure how you can assert that "most of these deaths are due to sectarian violence." You may be right, of course, but you'll have to acknowledge some number of deaths, and accept somebody's figures (unless you've done your own study), before you can go attributing them to anything, and particularly if you're going to attribute "most" of them to a phenomenon which is not widely held to be the source of "most" Iraqi deaths.

...there is still no chance whatsoever that we would attack North Korea.

That's an interesting assertion, and I wouldn't disagree entirely that the probability is low. If it were to become necessary, however, it would be quite difficult, again as a result of neocon policies, not in spite of them.

The only way to deal with North Korea is to convince China to pressure them. There is no other solution.

I think you're probably right. I suspect the task would be easier if the President hadn't largely squandered American credibility among the other nations of the world over the past 5 years.

a) We didn't invade Iraq because of 9/11, since there still is no evidence that the two are linked.

b) Saddam Hussein had no connection whatsoever with 9/11 or with al-Qaeda. Since the two are not linked, the invasion hasn't made us safer from the actual threats that exist.

c) It's fallacious to say we haven't been attacked since 9/11. Because of our invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, American targets have been hit scores of times all over the Middle East, South Asia and even in the Pacific area. Dozens and dozens of attacks, and there are Americans all over the world. Being out of the country doesn't make an American any less an American. So we have not actually made any headway in being safer than we were before. In addition, there is some question as to the origins of the Anthrax attacks that began on Sept. 18, 2001... on American soil.

d) What would be very ironic indeed, is if Iraq becomes any kind of Islamic state whenever this is all over with, because under Saddam Hussein there was actually full religious freedom. Jews and Christians were safe there. Not now, though, so that would be very ironic if the "democracy" we brought to the Iraqi people results in them having less freedom than before we invaded and deposed Saddam Hussein.

a) That's nice, who mentioned 9/11?

b) He had no substantial connection with al-Qaeda and no connection with 9/11, but is al-Qaeda the only terrorist organization out there? And isn't if funny that ever since we defeated Saddam only months after the start of war, the major group we have been fighting in Iraq has been al-Qaeda. Perhaps this war should be broken into two parts. The first part was the invasion of Iraq where were fought the Army of Saddam and defeated it quite effectively. The second part was rebuilding Iraq where our major adversary has been al-Qaeda. That's right, we have been fighting that threat in Iraq.

c) Who claimed that we haven't been attacked since 9/11?

d) Whether or not Iraq becomes a religious state is now left up to the people of Iraq. There may have been religious freedom in Iraq, but ask the Kurds about racial freedom. Besides, is it really religious freedom if a brutal dictator is forcing it upon you?

a) 9/11 is what triggered our so-called "un-safety" and our reaction to that should have been a response to those who are making us "unsafe"... right?

b) According to the FBI, the hijackers were from "al-Qaeda"... which is the threat we face. Invading Iraq did nothing to alleviate the threat to our safety that was posed on 9/11, and still exists today. If anything, it has increased that threat, since more terrorists have been created... around the world.

c) "Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" implies that there is no threat here and hasn't been one since 9/11. It's bull@!$%#, of course, but the connection between that quoted phrase and the justification for invading Iraq has been made time and time again by high level members of this administration... even though it's a fallacious argument and a justification for the invasion. Fighting "them" over there shouldn't have been centered in Iraq, since it wasn't the source of the actual threat from al-Qaeda's hijackers. The attack on Iraq was not an attack on those who posed the threat to our "safety."

d) By the same token, is it religious freedom if a particular branch of Judeo=Christendom is legislating their mores and backing them with the power of the courts, right here in the U.S.?

the major group we have been fighting in Iraq has been al-Qaeda.

This is just not true. Al Quaeda is a minor and opportunist faction.

Adam said:

his means that there should be 524,000 death certificates if they used proper sampling methodology. However, the combined number of death certificates from all official sources is approximately 50,000.

How many people have death certificates in war? I see your point and it is one that can potentially weaken the results. However you can NOT use death certificates as a measure of the number of bodies. Don't forget that Muslim corpses must be buried before sunset of the same day. People would be more concerned with burying their dead than documenting the death.

How many people have death certificates in war?

I see your point, but that is if we are just going by death certificates. I am using the death certificates not to prove how many deaths there actually were, but instead to disprove the "random sampling" used by this study. 80% of the deaths sampled by this study have death certificates, however when the numbers are expanded only 8% of deaths have death certificates. That should not drop from 80% to 8%, it should stay around 80% if they sampled correctly.

Here's a little more information about the study, from LewRockwell.com.

I suppose you base the 50,000 report on the July figure released by Iraqi morgues, but even then it was indicated that No figures were recorded for the first year of the invasion, and that was only a baseline measure. If you add it to the fact that the same Morgues report said that child mortality was ignored, and the commonsense assumption that not many deaths in a war will be documented, especially in rural areas or in hotspots....
I think 600,000 is a VERY high number but I don't for one minute reckon it's 50,000 either.

In the end you're right that we have cause to be sceptical about the survey.

Oluseye Bassir, I'm not saying that the 50,000 death certificates are all the deaths, or 80% of the deaths. I am mainly saying that the 50,000 death certificates coupled with the Lancet's own methodology and reports that there existed death certificates for 80% of the deaths they sampled contradict the final estimate produced by the Lancet report. I have no idea what the actual number is, it may very well in fact be 600 some thousand. I am merely arguing that the number as estimated by the Lancet report is extremely inconsistent with known factors.

But as has been argued by Brad Farris, what does that number really mean anyway. Does 10,000 excess deaths not count as much as a million? Just how much does a statistic, even an accurate one, mean?

Perhaps you should put it on CafePress. You could make a few bucks.

T Shirts, coffee mugs, posters...

I'm serious.