125 Killed in Najaf Bombing. Why the War Was Unjust.

Ridiculous. Yeah glynch, we should base our opinion of the justness of the War on Terror on the actions of a group of radical extremists who are willing to blow up 100+ people. Then we should throw in yet another meaningless comparison to Vietnam. Why do you insist on comparing this to Vietnam, a *completely* different situation? Look bro, I'm sorry your side lost the debate on whether or not to pursue the War on Terror. You position was determined to be wrong for America. Liberals and conservatives alike disagreed mightily with your stance. Your sour grapes have been evident for quite some time.

 

It seems to me that in the short term innocent people were still going to die if we didn't arrange a regime change for Iraq. Look at the record: they have for a quarter of a century.

 

That's an understatement.

And laying the blame for this at the US's feet is really a stretch.

 

The Iraqis Shiites demanded that we keep a distance from their holy places.

Now the Bush haters demand to know why we weren't protecting the Shiite holy places.

This is obviously (to me) an Al Queda attempt to create a civil war in Iraq. The terrorists are starting to realize that attacking American troops only gets a multiple of terrorists killed, so now the Iraqi people will be the new target.

When will the Arab world rise up and say enough is enough? When will the Arab street realize that the United States is their friend, and fanatic Islamists are their enemy?

 

glynch,

How many people had to do at the hands of Iraqi's former dictator before you would have declared a war just? It seems like a fair question.

 

Well, this is obviously a ridiculous argument, but not at all unexpected coming from glynch.

Question: Is what we're seeing actually a 'civil war'?

Answer: No. The Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds have yet to take up arms against each other, a necessary prerequisite for it to be classified as a civil war.

Question: Is the Najaf bombing an example of a civil war?

Answer: No. The four men that Iraqi police caught today have claimed that it was the work of Al Qaeda foreigners backed by former Baathists, the same factions who perpetrated the UN and Jordanian embassy bombings. Not Iraqi Sunnis against Iraqi Shiites, more like Saudi Wahabbis against Iraqi Shiites.

Question: Are we anywhere near the death toll caused by the Baath regime over its 30+ year history, and if so, can this war be classified as unjust?

Answer: No and No. The Baathist regime is responsible for approximately 1.2 million deaths (Iraqi, Iranian, Kurdish, and Kuwaiti), with countless more wounded, over a 30+ year span. That averages into about 40,000 per year, and that doesn't even count those who were horribly mutilated and wounded, and those who simply disappeared into the night at the hands of the Mukhabarat. Are we anywhere close to that? The toll to date is not even fractionally significant in relation to the old toll.

Counting both Gulf Wars, we've got about another 1.15 million to go to catch up. And the first one wasn't even of our doing. And nice going comparing it to Cambodia. Perhaps you missed the irony of this: Pol Pot's and Saddam's numbers of their own people who they killed were really quite close. So yes, before we got there Iraq was similar to Cambodia's killing fields. A point often missed by our pacifist protester friends like glynch.

Sorry glynch, there will be no more mass graves. I know you miss Saddam, but you're just going to have to learn to deal with the fact that the Baathist murder machine is out of power for good...

Of course, by glynch's definition, there really is no such thing as a just war, so it's really pointless to argue with him about it.

 

The general argument is not at all ridiculous, in fact it’s the most obvious and compelling argument. As is the case in most operations/projects, if you can’t finish a job then you shouldn’t start it, because the mess you leave behind could be worst than the one you started with. I think it may be a little premature to say that we can conclude that this has happened, but this bombing along with the UN bombing and the ongoing terrorist attacks are certainly troubling.

The attempt by the US to involve the UN as this point is even more troubling. Did they not have this intervention adequately planned in the first place? By deciding to proceed with a limited coalition rather than a broad based one the US made this situation much more complicated and limited the available resources greatly. The added complication, of course, was caused by US becoming the focal point of the intervention. This added greatly to the risk of having terrorists and other governments in the area try to undermine the intervention as a way to attack the US. It is beginning to look like this has happened and that the war and the players involved have expanded well past the desired scope of the mission. Now that battle lines have been drawn and potential allies have been alienated, involvement by the UN becomes much more difficult. I suspect that it can still be done, but I think the US will have to give up a significant amount of control over the operation.

Why the US decided to not to use a coalition to begin with is a mystery to me. I see no sound military reason for doing so. If this was simply a matter of indulging the egos of a few leaders who have never been to war and who do not seem to understand the strategy and complications of such an intervention, then the people of the ME and the people of America have been done a great disservice/injustice. Time will tell.

 

Here's an interesting article on the arrest of 19 people accused of the bombing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3090034,00.html