It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Thirty-Eight
This was first published in February 2013
"War Again, Iraq"
First, the lead up to the Iraq war was, and remains, highly controversial. The public was given information at the time to justify the commencing of military operations against Iraq, some of which was later deemed to be untrue, or at least unreliable. The overall subject is far beyond the scope of this article, but as I always mention, if you are interested in a particular aspect of an article, please check out your local library's resources. The information here will be very basic and certainly incomplete for such a subject. It's been difficult to write this article, even though it is basic, as the evidence used to initiate hostilities in 2003 took time for Congress and the media, and therefore, the public, to evaluate. Positions and beliefs of the 2002/03 Bush administration were at times later changed, when contrary evidence was brought forward, but that was AFTER the war had started, and in fact, ended; that is, the invasion phase of the war.
The war in Afghanistan remained settled down by late 2002,* but Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar remained at large. The Bush administration then chose to focus on Saddam Hussein and Iraq. After the religious fundamentalists had taken over Iran by revolution in the late 1970s, American leaders found Saddam, a secular military dictator, and his nation of Iraq, to be a counter force to Iran. Hostility between Iraq and Iran grew and developed into a bloody all out war in the 1980s, with American leaders openly supporting Saddam, including with financial aid. The war eventually ended in an armistice arranged by the United Nations in the summer of 1988. Saddam, however, was unable to get along with neighboring Kuwait, a nation which had helped him finance the war against Iran. As has already been covered in an earlier segment, Saddam occupied Kuwait, bringing a military coalition together, led by the United States, and including Muslim nations of the Middle East, to oust Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Saddam's forces were quickly defeated, but the Iraqi dictator remained in power by ruthlessly purging anyone within his inner circle thought to be inclined to lead a revolt against him and his regime. Hussein remained a problem in the Middle East throughout the 1990s, and when the 9/11 attacks occurred, initially, it was not unreasonable to at least suspect his involvement in some way. The U.S. believed there had been some meetings between al Qaeda agents and members of Iraq's intelligence service. The ultimate fear was an alliance of some sort, where Saddam supplied biological or chemical weapons to al Qaeda, whose agents would then use those weapons against the U.S. and other nations. The problem was, the lack of evidence of such a Saddam role, or in fact, of any conclusive ties between Saddam and al Qaeda.
Notably, Vice President Dick Cheney tied Iraq to al Qaeda, indicating the administration's belief of a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda for the better part of a decade. Further, the Vice President told of one of the 9/11 hijackers meeting with an Iraqi agent just a few months before the 9/11 attacks. The public connected the all too obvious dots laid out by the Vice President. Saddam Hussein had and used chemical weapons in the past, a point emphasized by the administration, a point not lost on the American public and others. The question, however, has remained, was the Bush administration already intent on going to war with Iraq and therefore seeking any justifications it could find to do so?**
The agreement to end the Gulf War (1991) had, as part of a United Nations' resolution, the prohibition of Iraq possessing or developing biological, nuclear or chemical weapons ("weapons of mass destruction," or "WMD," the terms that came to be applied for such weapons). During the 1990s and up until 2003, Saddam's very reputation made a number of people question whether he had truly destroyed his "WMD" cache, or that he was not trying to develop an atomic weapon of some type. In the time just prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration believed Saddam had such weapons, although no real evidence supported that position. Saddam Hussein's defiant behavior also lent credibility to those saying he was hiding biological and chemical weapons and likely pursuing a nuclear weapon.
By March of 2003 more than 200,000 troops, about 3/4 Americans and 1/4 British,*** invaded Iraq after massive aerial and missile bombardment against the country. Saddam's forces collapsed and by April, Baghdad, the Iraqi capital, was taken. A couple of weeks later, in what turned out to be a display of terribly poor judgment, President Bush landed on a U.S. aircraft carrier, complete with a huge banner reading "Mission Accomplished." The President then declared an end to "major combat operations."
Next... "Combat Operations in Iraq Go On.. and On"
* It's always a different matter for the population and for the troops stationed there, as there was fighting and civilian and military personnel were killed and wounded.
** The administration had a number of so called "neocons;" that is, "neoconservatives," who believed the U.S. had a duty to spread freedom to all parts of the world, even militarily. They also tended to support "pro-active" military action to defend American interests, as opposed to the "generally" more reactive American historical policy. What does this mean? Well, from its founding, the U.S. was, for the most part, protected from major military nations in Europe and Asia by the great oceans. This certainly developed a sense of "you leave us alone and we'll leave you alone" isolationist foreign policy. When Europe went to war in 1914 (World War One) and again in 1939 (World War Two), it seems most Americans were perfectly content to remain out of direct involvement in those conflicts, until further events developed. In the early years of World War Two, this isolationism seems to have been much to the consternation of Franklin Roosevelt and his administration, which feared a Nazi victory over beleaguered Britain in the 1940-41 period of the war. As World War Two neared its end, some, what you might call "neocons" of that time, felt the U.S. and other western nations should confront Stalin's Soviet Union, while troops were already mobilized and supplied in Europe, and go to war if need be, with some even believing former Nazi troops should be used, if war with the Soviets broke out. So, you get the idea.
*** While President George W. Bush touted a military coalition against Saddam, the actual military forces contributed by most coalition partners, except for Britain, were small, at least in the invasion phase of the operation.
WORD HISTORY:
Talk-For what is now a very common word, its history is a bit cloudy. This word is something of a variant of "tale" (thus also related to "tell"), which had a verb form in Old English, one of the meanings of which was "tell, relate a story or events;" therefore the spinoff which meant "to talk."^ "Talk" goes back to Indo European "del/dal/dol," which had the notion "to count, to count off (recount) events of a story." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "taljanan," with the same meanings, but "apparently" some of the West Germanic dialects, especially along the North Sea coast, developed a variant, something on the order of "talkonan," which meant "to talk." The East Frisian dialect has "talken," with the same meaning. German has "Talk" (the noun form), but it was borrowed, likely from English, with reinforcement from East Frisian and Low German. I'm not quite sure where Low German got the word; that is, whether it came from the original source, as part of Low German is right up there by the North Sea coast, or whether it came from Frisian or English. Anyway, "apparently" the Anglo-Saxons carried their word to Britain (some Frisians also went), where it remained among the common people (thus not written down, at least in any writings ever found), and eventually became "talken " in the early 1200s, before the modern version and its common usage. The noun developed from the verb in the 1400s; that is, "a speech or conversation."
^ For the Word History for "tale," see my article: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2013/02/beautys-only-skin-deep.html
"War Again, Iraq"
First, the lead up to the Iraq war was, and remains, highly controversial. The public was given information at the time to justify the commencing of military operations against Iraq, some of which was later deemed to be untrue, or at least unreliable. The overall subject is far beyond the scope of this article, but as I always mention, if you are interested in a particular aspect of an article, please check out your local library's resources. The information here will be very basic and certainly incomplete for such a subject. It's been difficult to write this article, even though it is basic, as the evidence used to initiate hostilities in 2003 took time for Congress and the media, and therefore, the public, to evaluate. Positions and beliefs of the 2002/03 Bush administration were at times later changed, when contrary evidence was brought forward, but that was AFTER the war had started, and in fact, ended; that is, the invasion phase of the war.
The war in Afghanistan remained settled down by late 2002,* but Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar remained at large. The Bush administration then chose to focus on Saddam Hussein and Iraq. After the religious fundamentalists had taken over Iran by revolution in the late 1970s, American leaders found Saddam, a secular military dictator, and his nation of Iraq, to be a counter force to Iran. Hostility between Iraq and Iran grew and developed into a bloody all out war in the 1980s, with American leaders openly supporting Saddam, including with financial aid. The war eventually ended in an armistice arranged by the United Nations in the summer of 1988. Saddam, however, was unable to get along with neighboring Kuwait, a nation which had helped him finance the war against Iran. As has already been covered in an earlier segment, Saddam occupied Kuwait, bringing a military coalition together, led by the United States, and including Muslim nations of the Middle East, to oust Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Saddam's forces were quickly defeated, but the Iraqi dictator remained in power by ruthlessly purging anyone within his inner circle thought to be inclined to lead a revolt against him and his regime. Hussein remained a problem in the Middle East throughout the 1990s, and when the 9/11 attacks occurred, initially, it was not unreasonable to at least suspect his involvement in some way. The U.S. believed there had been some meetings between al Qaeda agents and members of Iraq's intelligence service. The ultimate fear was an alliance of some sort, where Saddam supplied biological or chemical weapons to al Qaeda, whose agents would then use those weapons against the U.S. and other nations. The problem was, the lack of evidence of such a Saddam role, or in fact, of any conclusive ties between Saddam and al Qaeda.
Notably, Vice President Dick Cheney tied Iraq to al Qaeda, indicating the administration's belief of a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda for the better part of a decade. Further, the Vice President told of one of the 9/11 hijackers meeting with an Iraqi agent just a few months before the 9/11 attacks. The public connected the all too obvious dots laid out by the Vice President. Saddam Hussein had and used chemical weapons in the past, a point emphasized by the administration, a point not lost on the American public and others. The question, however, has remained, was the Bush administration already intent on going to war with Iraq and therefore seeking any justifications it could find to do so?**
The agreement to end the Gulf War (1991) had, as part of a United Nations' resolution, the prohibition of Iraq possessing or developing biological, nuclear or chemical weapons ("weapons of mass destruction," or "WMD," the terms that came to be applied for such weapons). During the 1990s and up until 2003, Saddam's very reputation made a number of people question whether he had truly destroyed his "WMD" cache, or that he was not trying to develop an atomic weapon of some type. In the time just prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration believed Saddam had such weapons, although no real evidence supported that position. Saddam Hussein's defiant behavior also lent credibility to those saying he was hiding biological and chemical weapons and likely pursuing a nuclear weapon.
By March of 2003 more than 200,000 troops, about 3/4 Americans and 1/4 British,*** invaded Iraq after massive aerial and missile bombardment against the country. Saddam's forces collapsed and by April, Baghdad, the Iraqi capital, was taken. A couple of weeks later, in what turned out to be a display of terribly poor judgment, President Bush landed on a U.S. aircraft carrier, complete with a huge banner reading "Mission Accomplished." The President then declared an end to "major combat operations."
Next... "Combat Operations in Iraq Go On.. and On"
* It's always a different matter for the population and for the troops stationed there, as there was fighting and civilian and military personnel were killed and wounded.
** The administration had a number of so called "neocons;" that is, "neoconservatives," who believed the U.S. had a duty to spread freedom to all parts of the world, even militarily. They also tended to support "pro-active" military action to defend American interests, as opposed to the "generally" more reactive American historical policy. What does this mean? Well, from its founding, the U.S. was, for the most part, protected from major military nations in Europe and Asia by the great oceans. This certainly developed a sense of "you leave us alone and we'll leave you alone" isolationist foreign policy. When Europe went to war in 1914 (World War One) and again in 1939 (World War Two), it seems most Americans were perfectly content to remain out of direct involvement in those conflicts, until further events developed. In the early years of World War Two, this isolationism seems to have been much to the consternation of Franklin Roosevelt and his administration, which feared a Nazi victory over beleaguered Britain in the 1940-41 period of the war. As World War Two neared its end, some, what you might call "neocons" of that time, felt the U.S. and other western nations should confront Stalin's Soviet Union, while troops were already mobilized and supplied in Europe, and go to war if need be, with some even believing former Nazi troops should be used, if war with the Soviets broke out. So, you get the idea.
*** While President George W. Bush touted a military coalition against Saddam, the actual military forces contributed by most coalition partners, except for Britain, were small, at least in the invasion phase of the operation.
WORD HISTORY:
Talk-For what is now a very common word, its history is a bit cloudy. This word is something of a variant of "tale" (thus also related to "tell"), which had a verb form in Old English, one of the meanings of which was "tell, relate a story or events;" therefore the spinoff which meant "to talk."^ "Talk" goes back to Indo European "del/dal/dol," which had the notion "to count, to count off (recount) events of a story." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "taljanan," with the same meanings, but "apparently" some of the West Germanic dialects, especially along the North Sea coast, developed a variant, something on the order of "talkonan," which meant "to talk." The East Frisian dialect has "talken," with the same meaning. German has "Talk" (the noun form), but it was borrowed, likely from English, with reinforcement from East Frisian and Low German. I'm not quite sure where Low German got the word; that is, whether it came from the original source, as part of Low German is right up there by the North Sea coast, or whether it came from Frisian or English. Anyway, "apparently" the Anglo-Saxons carried their word to Britain (some Frisians also went), where it remained among the common people (thus not written down, at least in any writings ever found), and eventually became "talken " in the early 1200s, before the modern version and its common usage. The noun developed from the verb in the 1400s; that is, "a speech or conversation."
^ For the Word History for "tale," see my article: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2013/02/beautys-only-skin-deep.html
Labels: Britain, Dick Cheney, English, etymology, George W. Bush, Germanic languages, Iraq, neocons, Saddam Hussein, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction
posted by Randy at 10:42 AM
2 Comments:
Cheney's a criminal in my opinion. That whole rush to war was a criminal operation costing the lives of many Aemricans, Brits and Iraqis and others. Tony Blair isn't innocent either.
they lied to us about hussane and wmd. then they tortured people.
Post a Comment
<< Home