The blame game

The time for feeling smug about my vociferous pre-war opposition to George Bush's Iraq adventure has long since passed, if there ever was such a time. It became apparent some time ago that not only is America going to 'lose' in Iraq (due to the persistent insurgency) but that barring unforseen miracles, Iraq is going to tear itself apart. A lot of people are going to die, and even after the dust has settled it will take a generation to fully recover. I saw that in Lebanon last November (before America decided to let Israel have another go at them, too). A lot of things in Lebanon still had bullet holes in them, 15 years after the fact.

This descent into civil war in Iraq is much more serious to me than America's (or my own) pride, and despite my antipathy toward the current American government, I truly, honestly never wanted to see this project fail so disasterously -- indeed, I wouldn't have thought it possible. The indifference to the magnitude of the task at hand, the ineptitude, and the incompetence, are staggering. I highly recommend the book "Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq" by Thomas E. Ricks. It will set your blood boiling, if it doesn't make you weep in despair. Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of that warmongering cabal are callous, criminal, and inhuman. They have only slightly more concern for the thousands of dead and maimed American soldiers than they do for the tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dead Iraqis. These men are little better than Saddam himself.

As it has become apparent that America wants to "get out" of Iraq -- besides a dozen or so permanent military bases, that is -- I've come to disagree with the Cindy Sheehans and John Murthas on the anti-war side in America. Morally, America cannot simply walk away just as the slaughter begins in earnest. America created this situation, and it falls to America to put it right, or at least mitigate the disaster. The only moral thing America can do in Iraq is persist. Personally, I don't care if it pains them to do so; Maybe they'll think twice before starting their next war.

So this morning comes an article on MSNBC about how the new game in town, in Washington, is the blame game. Everyone sees the Iraq project is a failure, and they know that history will record it as such. So now they're casting about for a way to make it someone else's fault. This is quite aside from the fact that the Bush crew are flailingly trying to discourage people from using the term "civil war" to describe what's happening. We know why this is so; it's all about the history books. The President most certainly does not want his legacy to be summed up with the sentence, "Following Bush's half-baked invasion, and ignominious withdrawal, Iraq descended into civil war". It will be difficult to leave and declare victory while everyone thinks there's a civil war going on.

Back to the blame game: Whose fault will it be? Why, the Iraqis' fault of course. They just weren't good enough to live up to America's lofty vision. From the article:

From troops on the ground to members of Congress, Americans increasingly blame the continuing violence and destruction in Iraq on the people most affected by it: the Iraqis.

And another quote:

"It is the first manifestation of a 'Who lost Iraq?' argument that will likely rage for years to come," said Bruce Hoffman, a Georgetown University expert on terrorism who has worked as a U.S. government consultant in Iraq.

I don't think the history books will say that this was the Iraqis' fault. Just in case anyone needed reminding, the Iraqi people didn't ask to be invaded, have their government, army, police, ministries, and institutions dismantled. Let's say someone came along and effectively removed all functioning government in Detroit, increased unemployment to 50% (would that be an increase in Detroit?), cut the power supply to 4 hours per day, and made day-long queues for a tank of gasoline at several times the current price. I'm sure, in such a situation, Detroit would be the model of civility. And if things were to go pear-shaped after 4 years of this? Well, blame it on the citizens.

Never mind, install a few military bases behind high walls, strong-arm a few oil deals, declare victory, and hang Saddam on your way out of town, George Bush. Those things are all you ever really cared about anyway. Mission nearly accomplished. That other democracy stuff was just supposed to be frosting.

Following President George W. Bush's half-baked invasion, failure to find weapons of mass destruction, failure to install democracy, and ignominious withdrawal, Iraq descended into civil war. Iraqis just didn't do enough to help themselves.

What happened to these pesky terrorists?

Let's not forget about that big terrorist airline plot that British authorities busted up this summer, as it seems to have largely dropped out of the news (just as the bogus "ricin plot" did). I posted doubts about it here, here, here, and here. Considering that the plot promised "mass murder on an unimaginable scale", I find it odd that some of these guys have been quietly bailed or even released outright. I suspect that when politicians want to scare us with terrorist bogeymen who may or may not be legitimately dangerous, they rely on the fact that the public has a really short memory for news stories -- just in case they turn out to be "semi-harmless losers". If these airline plotters had been the proverbial real deal, I expect that Tony Blair and John Reid would still be crowing about it, and that we would now be seeing sensational terrorism trials.

In fact, I know someone who claims to have been acquainted with one of the arrestees; my friend told me that, far from being an Islamist fanatic, the alleged plotter was a petty drug dealer. I suspect (though I have no further inside information) that in the end, he'll be prosecuted for nothing more than whatever drugs charges they can make stick. [ See also the story of the completely innocent alleged terrorist who was shot in his home by 250 armed policemen, and not properly apologized to, but rather head-spinningly charged for the dodgy porn they subsequently found on his computer. ]

British liberty Pt. IV

The march of "big brother" continues relentlessly here in Britain. Seems like there's a new scheme every week. Last week there was talk of a mandatory nationwide DNA database. Here's the latest: police will be able to fingerprint people on the spot in order to determine identity. The Beeb article is here. First quote:

"Screening on the street means they [police] can check an identity and verify it." Currently an officer has to arrest a person and take them to a custody suite to fingerprint them.

Heaven forbid the police would actually have to show cause to arrest someone before the fingerprints and mugshots stage. But you see, in Britain, all of these schemes are presented as innocent tradeoffs: CCTV cameras are only there to protect you from crime, for example. And in every case I've seen, the British are willing to make the tradeoff. Yes, they're always willing to trade privacy and freedom for some short-term benefit, and they always trust the government and police not to abuse the new powers they award themselves month after month. In this case, the tradeoff is sold as "convenience" along with a veiled "so we don't have to make your life miserable" threat:

Inspector Steve Rawlings, based in Luton, said it takes two sets of fingerprints and the fingerprints are not retained. "The encounter can be 15 minutes on the roadside rather than three hours in the police station," he said.

I've been ticketed at the roadside and required to show proof of insurance, etc., at the police station. It took about 10 minutes, rather than 3 hours. Note that the police and politicians promise that the fingerprints won't be retained, but how will they build their database in the first place? In order to be useful, they need to have my fingerprints on file -- which they currently don't. I don't intend to provide them unless I'm forced to. This last quote contains the spot-on prediction that I'm sure describes the future of this scheme:

Mark Wallace, who represents the civil liberties group, the Freedom Association told BBC Radio Five Live that he had "concerns" about the scheme. "I don't think we should be reassured by the fact that at the moment it's voluntary and at the moment they won't be recorded," he said. "Both of those things are actually only happening in the trial because the laws haven't been passed to do this on a national basis compulsorily and with recording."

The trial is being conducted in Hertfordshire, where I work. In modern-day Britain's surveillance state, we can be fairly certain that before long it won't be voluntary (what real use would it be if it remained voluntary?), that the fingerprints will be retained, and that the whole thing will probably be justified as protecting us from terrorists.

Add it to the list: pervasive CCTV surveillance, automatic number-plate recognition used to track all car journeys, 'Oyster' cards tracking journeys on public transport, DNA databases, arbitary police stop-and-search powers, anti-social behaviour orders, mandatory ID cards, biometric RFID passports, legally-enforced political correctness, and on and on. What fun.

More on these subjects here, here, and here.