Antiwar.com Blog

Jonathan Schwarz and Sam Husseini aren’t letting Colin Powell get away with it.

We like to publicize the sunny prewar forecasts of big-shot warbots, and rightly so. Most of these fools have yet to shut up, and despite their staggering record of entrails illiteracy, many are now assuring us of further “victories” to be had. Of course, the perpetually bellicose, when confronted with their cakewalks-and-candy Iraq predictions, sputter something like, Oh yeah, well you peace freaks were wrong about a lot of stuff, too!

Let’s slay this canard once and for all.

Yes, millions of people opposed the Iraq invasion, and I’m sure that at least a few of them offered highly specific predictions that were way off. But let’s skip the outliers and focus on the broad sweep of antiwar thought. The gist of pragmatic arguments against the Iraq invasion (we’ll set aside the whole mass-murder-is-wrong moral case for now) was that so many things could go horribly wrong that almost certainly some things would go horribly wrong.

At this point, I’d like the pro-war people reading this to eliminate all distractions in their surroundings, take a few deep breaths, and concentrate really, really hard, because I’m about to throw a brain-buster out there. Ready? OK: We didn’t say that all of the bad things that could have happened were going to happen. In fact, some of the nightmare scenarios we offered were mutually exclusive. The Iraqi army could either stand up and fight the invaders to the death conventionally, inflicting horrific casualties for a few months before ultimately losing, or they could slink away and regroup as guerillas, bleeding the occupiers slowly. Obviously, they couldn’t do both, but they probably would do one or the other. Either way, many lives would be lost, the ensuing occupation would be brutal for soldiers and civilians alike, and the U.S. triumph would likely turn increasingly Pyrrhic over the long term.

Still too hard? Fine. Let’s say you and I are walking down a crowded street. You point out some random guy and announce, “I’m going to go kick his ass.” I grab your arm and say, “Wait! I’m not sure what good you think will come of this, but I assume you foresee some twisted ego boost in it. Whatever. What will most likely happen in the world outside your cranium, however, is one of the following: One, your would-be victim turns out to be more of a badass than he looks, and, win or lose, he knocks your teeth out. Or two, you successfully pummel him – then somebody calls the cops, you go to jail, and he launches a civil suit against you for all you’re worth.”

You proceed to purée the guy with ease. Later, when you call me from jail, your life ruined, your property liquidated, you chuckle, “You moron – you said he would knock my teeth out.”

Sound familiar?

The New York Times has a great piece today on sham justice in Iraq.  The US military now holds almost twice as many Iraqi detainees as it did when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke.  The U.S. set up a Central Criminal Court in Baghdad that usually has a Soviet-like disregard for due process.  The system reduces paperwork burdens by routinely excluding defense lawyers. The Times noted, “ One American lawyer said that in 100 cases he handled, not one defense lawyer had introduced evidence or witnesses.”  The U.S. military is heavily involved in prosecutions – but even when an Iraqi judge finds a defendant not guilty, the U.S. sometimes refuses to release him.

What is the standard used for holding Iraqis (for as long as two years)?

The Times noted:
The military conducts reviews in the camps to screen detainees for release. Many have been swept up at the scene of bombings or other violence, and the detention camp boards have recommended releasing as many as 60 percent of the detainees whose cases they reviewed.
Officials have sought to tighten the evidentiary standards used in deciding whether to detain suspects. Last year, for example, Maj. Gen. William H. Brandenburg, then the task force commander, became concerned about a swipe test that soldiers used on suspects to detect gunpowder. The test was so unreliable that cigarette lighter residue and even a common hand lotion would register as gunpowder.

The Iraqi courts are sentencing people to hanging based on often flimsy evidence. Iraqi courts have relied on tortured confessions in some cases.

Remember how Bush brags about having brought the “Rule of Law” to Iraq? Remember that Bush also brags about the “Rule of Law” in America. 

Rather than bringing American-style justice to Iraq, Bush is more likely to bring Iraqi-style justice to America.   The Military Commissions Act is a harbinger of things to come.

Comments on this entry are welcome at my blog here.

 

It’s so annoying when a newspaper I otherwise like has neo-imperialist politics. Last week’s Economist, for example, opines that Britain, a country that has no militarily hostile neighbors and hasn’t been invaded in centuries, must have nuclear weapons for self-defense, but Iran, in much more difficult circumstances, must not. And the Wall Street Journal‘s editorial page is usually much worse.

So I was surprised by a recent WSJ guest editorial by chessmaster Garry Kasparov that sounds a lot like Benjamin Schwarz & Christopher Layne‘s “offshore balancing” strategy (see “A New Grand Strategy“), promoted here on Antiwar.com before the Iraq invasion.

“Chessboard Endgame: Obsessed with Iraq, we’ve lost sight of the rest of the world,” (a weird title, since the author lives in Russia) by Garry Kasparov:

… The attack on the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan went so well that the U.S. and its allies did not appreciate all the reasons for the success. Almost every player on the world stage benefited from the attack on Afghanistan. The rout of the Sunni Taliban delighted Iran. Russia and China have no love for religious extremism near their borders. India was happy to see the U.S. launch a direct attack on Muslim terrorists.

… Not only was there a confluence of world opinion aided by sympathy for the U.S. after 9/11, but the proverbial bad guys were undoubtedly bad, and we knew where they were.

… America’s role as “bad cop” has been a flop on the global stage. Without the American presence in Iraq as a target and scapegoat, Iraqis would be forced to make the hard political decisions they are currently avoiding. We won’t know if Iraq can stand on its own until the U.S. forces leave. Meanwhile, South Korea and China refuse to take action on North Korea while accusing the U.S. of provocative behavior. How quickly would their attitudes change if the U.S. pulled its troops out of the Korean Peninsula? Or if Japan — not to mention Taiwan — announced nuclear weapon plans?

… As the world’s sole superpower, the U.S. has become a lightening rod. Any intervention causes resentment, and even many traditional allies oppose U.S. plans almost out of hand. America’s overly proactive foreign policy has also allowed other nations to avoid responsibility for their own safety, and to avoid making the tough decisions that come with that responsibility.

… All the allied troops in the world aren’t going to stop the Iraqi people from continuing their civil war if this is their choice. … As for stability, if allied troops leave Iraq: What stability? … Without change, we are expecting a different result from the same behavior, something once defined as insanity.

Readers might want to check out the Peace section of my science blog.

On December 15, 1791 the U.S. Bill of Rights was adopted. This was considered the first and most important business of the new government, for many states only agreed to adopt the U.S. Constitution on the condition that it be quickly amended to restrict the power of the central government. Having recently experienced creeping infringement of personal liberties, the former colonists feared that the checks and balances of a tripartite form of government might prove an insufficient protection…..William L. Hosch,  Britannica Blog.

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.    

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Ed Koch, a member of the board of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, has called for the dismissal of Dennis Prager from the Council, citing his recent anti-Muslim comments. Which raises a profound question: Ed Koch and Dennis Prager are on the board of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council??? Seriously?

And who named them to that solemn post? The Decider, of course.

Any guy who can’t manage the ribbon-cutting duties of the presidency without impaling himself on the big wacky scissors is probably not The Right Man to lead a crusade. Might wanna jot that down on a Post-It for future reference, Frum.