"Humanitarian" Reasons for War

Update: sorry, I blew the link to Arkhangel. It should be fixed now.

Another reason for not posting yesterday was that, after I finished reading Dogrun, I did some more reading--the usual websites, and then some. Billmon has a very long post, but one that is well-worth a careful read. Also, be sure to check out the comments and the links.

Human Rights Watch, one of Billmon's linked articles, has a scathing critique of the "humanitarian" justifications for the Iraq war, which have come to the forefront now that the WMD issue has been shown to be a canard. It's a long, dry report, but again, well worth taking a look at.

Short version: HRW is not averse to military action for humanitarian purposes, but they opt for the position that very specific conditions must be met before engaging in such an action. Iraq, for all the abuses perpetratated by Hussein, did not meet this criteria.

My own take, when arguing with the Bushistas, is to tell them that, honestly, WE DON'T KNOW yet if Iraq will be a better place without Saddam in power. Furthermore, I doubt seriously, based on the evidence we have, that the US administration gives a good goddamn whether or nor there is genuine democracy in Iraq--or anywhere else in the region. So please spare me your newly discovered concerns for civil procedures, right-wingers. Besides, if Chalabi had somehow managed to bully his way into a genuine position of authority, is there any doubt he'd be the titular head of the country at this point?

Again, please take a look at the HRW report if you've got the time.

Addditionally, Billmon has a link to a Tomdispatch.com article (Billmon cites Juan Cole as his source) that contains a David Hilfiker report of his interview with Lt. Col. Nate Sassaman, who is noted for a comment he made a while back concerning how to deal with the resistance: a heavy dose of fear and violence, combined with a lot of money for reconstruction, or words to that effect.

This prompted a third component of the Billmon post--an exchange of emails and comments between himself, his readers, and an individual giving his/her name as Arkhangel. Arkhangel says he/she's attached to Lt. Col. Sassaman's unit--feel free to read the blog and judge for yourself. Call me gullible, but I tend to take people at their word--others at Billmon's comments area had their own opinions.

For the record, I also considered MojoVera to be genuine...but the nice thing about the internet is that you don't have to believe me.

It took me a good couple of hours to plow through all the stuff referenced above (call me a slow reader, I guess--shit, I am from Louisiana--maybe we're just slow in general down here)--so I'll cut this post here.