[blogfocus] the tragedy of iraq and related issues

Continued here ...

The shoddy equipment of the troops is a major concern to many bloggers:

Says Ranting Guttersnipe: Of course the armed forces are under strength. We knew the armed forces would be under strength from the moment the New Labour New Tossers got in charge. The left hates the armed forces and yet throws them into anything it can find.

Quinlan adds to this: General Lord Guthrie, former head of the UK armed forces and a close confidante of the Prime Minister, poured scorn on Blair’s recent pledge to give army chiefs in Afghanistan ‘anything’ they needed.

Johnathan Pearce writes in a similar vein: This reports states that Britain's armed forces are considered to be below strength for the tasks they have been ordered to perform. Nothing very surprising about that, given that although Blair has been almost indecently keen to deploy troops, sailors and airmen to various theatres of operations, he has not backed this up with a corresponding deployment of resources.

James Cleverly sums it up: Summary of the summary of the summary. We don’t have enough troops! We are losing them quicker than we are keeping them! We are asking too much of them!

… and Wat Tyler mutters a sharp aside on the issue of equipment: Actually, I have no problem arming the SAS with cash: it's a lot safer than their normal kit. And I've always felt we should use it more extensively to deprave and corrupt our enemies.

The Pedant-General looks at the tactical aspects of the military: The 20th Century wisdom was always that you needed a 3:1 advantage in numbers in the attack. Attack is always tougher than defence. Over recent years, the ability to disguise some seriously powerful anti-vehicle munitions and the relatively low cost of accurate remote detonation devices to trigger them render invading regular armed forces particularly vulnerable to a determined guerilla defence and the balance has naturally shifted even more in favour of the defenders.

... and Reactionary Snob agrees: First, did anyone apart from wingnuts, moonbats and the crazier fringes of the neo-conservative right actually think that after the war in Iraq we were just going to roll the tanks into Damascus?

… but Tim Worstall writes of the cost to the defending nation: The Lancet will be publishing an updated version of that report about civilian deaths in Iraq. Here's the Wall Street Journal's take. 600,000 deaths from violence, 55% of all deaths being caused by violence.

The domestic political aspects in both the US and UK concern various bloggers:

On the question of the parliamentary enquiry, Paul Linford says: Because contrary to what the Government maintains, the Hutton Inquiry and the Butler Inquiry were not enough. They failed to nail the real responsibility for the lies and deceptions that resulted in us going to war on a false prospectus, or to establish the extent of the Blair Government's culpability in failing to plan for the post-war aftermath.

Guido Fawkes analyses the vote: The Tories would not be voting against the war, but for scrutiny of the policy and the lead up to the military action. Claire Short is expected to speak in the debate (as an independent), the Labour backbenchers who feel they were hoodwinked into supporting the invasion may well vote for the establishment of a Select Committee.

Chris Dillow approves of it: Better men than I have argued that there should be an inquiry into the Iraq war.

… and Stephen Pollard is very much yea: For the life of me I can't understand why those who supported the Iraq war - and who continue to argue it was and remains the right thing to do - should oppose an inquiry. What is there to hide? Opposition to it can only come across as defensive and shifty and add (surely spurious) credence to the idea that there was something amiss with the basis of the decision.

However, Oliver Kamm is firmly opposed: Even if I were not a supporter of the Iraq War, I would see no case for a parliamentary inquiry into the reasons for our participating in it. Those reasons were rehearsed and voted on in Parliament, and two inquiries have since reported on different aspects of that pre-war controversy - the arguments, the flawed intelligence, and the death of David Kelly. All of the arguments cited at the time in support of overthrowing Saddam Hussein were defensible (and in my view right, but that's not the point in this discussion), bar specific claims made about WMD.

Crossing the Atlantic, at least in spirit, Lady Ellee writes of that website: But in recent weeks, the [US government] site has posted detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf War which, experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

… and Neocon comments: Turns out Bush wasn't such a dumb ole Dad after all. Probably won't mean squat to the obnoxious, know-it-all lefty teenagers though, will it? Well, I'm sitting there shakin' my head and Kate says, "Hell, that's not the whole story... you should mosey on over to Good Sense Diner for the smorgasbord.

L’Ombre comments on the political divide over Iraq in the US: But worse than ripping apart the justification for non-invasion, I think it won't take the thoughtful voter long to reflect (or be reminded by a Republican ad) that the Democrats have never ever had a strategy for Iraq or anywhere else that is even slightly positive.

Bryan Appleyard is not so enamoured of the Republicans: Donald Rumsfeld - why? I have asked everybody I know with any knowledge of these matters: why did Bush fail to sack him years ago? Everything he has done has been wrong from the initial troop deployments in Iraq to Abu Ghraib. If he had been sacked on about day two of the invasion, Bush would now be infinitely stronger than he is.

Anti-war sentiment, always present on the left:

Since it's always difficult to argue the case for the Iraq invasion while actually looking at the chaos it caused there, it's useful to be able to point to something more positive. Almost anything will do, says Stuart A …

… has also moved across to the right:

Long ago, Minette Marrin concluded: Before the bombers went in, there were many obvious and powerful arguments against invading Iraq. There were many people who expressed those arguments forcefully, in good faith and in bad. But there were many people who, like me, supported the invasion nonetheless because we had faith that the Americans knew what they were doing and believed it was in our best interests and right for Britain to support them. It seems I was wrong.

Vox Day today adds: Yes, well, I have been urging our pullout from Iraq for more than two years now. The absurdity of attempting to fix Iraq by uniting it is not particularly stupid because it's impossible, but because it is directly contrary to our interests. Civil wars are eminently desirable when all of those involved in fighting them are your openly declared enemies.

Zeroing in on the Muslim world itself:

Clive Davis says this story should be one to follow. Peter Galbraith and Reuel Marc Gerecht are embarking on a four-part debate on whether Iraq can survive as a unitary state. Galbraith kicks off, setting out his case for acknowledging that the divisions run too deep. Well worth a read.

Gates of Vienna comments: The more you learn about Iraq, the less you know. It is a complicated country, full of contradiction and contrasts. It behooves all of us to learn what we can, and to bear witness to the terrible deaths brought on by sectarian hatred.

Melanie Phillips states what must be apparent to most Israel watchers: As has been noted here already, the Palestinians of Gaza are being turned into a professional army, all the better to hit Israel more effectively. They are being trained by Iran along the lines of Hezbollah in order to ratchet up their attacks to a higher order of magnitude altogether, as this Washington Times:

In a similar vein, Norman Geras muses: Funny thing, politics. Rather than recognize Israel, Hamas is talking of a 10-year ceasefire. Ahmad Yousef, senior adviser to the Palestinian prime minister, says: We hope the Europeans will become aware of the concept of hudna, and that it can become a substitute for recognition of Israel.

… and Monty Lionheart looks at the Muslim mindset in general: This story defies belief. Or rather it does not because this is typical of the Muslim treatment of women. What belief system can describe itself as peaceful and tolerant when its followers in a village can force a woman who was raped - a victim of a sexual assault - to end her marriage and leave the hamlet?

Phil Edwards deplores the stated reasons for terrorism: Let us just take this issue of Iraq and expose it for a moment - frankly, the obscenity of these people saying it is concern for Iraq that drives them to terrorism.

… and Tom Paine looks at Middle-Eastern attitudes towards it: Only 28% of Lebanese Muslims and 9% of Palestinian Muslims consider attacks on Allied forces in Iraq to be terrorism, for example.

Dave Hill considers who the real winners were in the recent conflict; The sight of Beirut citizens on Channel 4 News claiming victory over Israel from amid the very rubble of their homes and businesses demonstrated with shocking clarity that Hizbollah were the winners of the Lebanon-Israel war.

… and David Farrer concludes: I don't see that spreading democracy into the Middle East is necessarily going to help the situation in that troubled part of the world. Nor is it much use anywhere else, unless the people in question hold firmly to the values of liberty.

Some bloggers get philosophical about it all and others have quite interesting ‘takes’:

Doctor Vee remembers when he was first told about 911: He said something to the effect of: “I just want to show you this, because this is going to have some major implications for foreign policy in the future…” He explained that planes had crashed into the Pentagon. That scared me a bit, because I thought if the Pentagon’s been destroyed, how can the USA defend itself?

You have to go back to April 15th for DK’s take on home grown Muslims: I would like to point out that I only support the er... "repatriation" of those Muslims who feel that they cannot happily live in our liberal society. If, for instance, a third of British Muslims would like to live under sharia—as they apparently do—then surely it would be a kindness to help them to live in a country in which they can do just that? You see, I am advocating this because it would obviously make those Muslims happy. Ain't that nice of me?

Thinking caps on for Deogolwulf’s philosophical labyrinth: If one were to remove the element of moral responsibility from the definition of blame, it would entail only the causal conditions of an act.

The Englishman compares Iraq and an even greater evil: What has four letters, begins with E and is slowly killing half of Europe? - Comment - Times Online The Iraq invasion, disastrous though it has been, may not go down in history as the greatest political blunder of the past decade. That dubious honour will probably belong to an event most people still regard as a triumph: the creation of the euro.

Prodicus feels the solution is not to find ‘nicer’ Muslims with more palatable views, but to challenge the notion that Muslim people can only be engaged with on the basis of their identity. A few moments thought would suffice to see the cogency of his reasoning.

Mr. Eugenides shakes his head sadly at the madness in the Islamic world: Heard on Radio 4's PM today (46 or so mins in), and subsequently confirmed with a quick trawl round the Internet; fanatics in Iraq are killing barbers for offering "unIslamic" haircuts, and shaving mens' beards.

…and the Tin Drummer thinks: Anyway it's all fucked. I know this because all intelligent people have risen to the defence of John Kerry, who reckons that people who fail in school "get stuck in Iraq".

Serf observes: The EU is apparently pleased that the Iraq Constitution has been signed by the president. They must be seething in Brussels; it took them two years and €200 Million to prepare a constitution and the Iraqis have managed on a much smaller budget in a shorter time. If the people actually vote for it, that will be even worse. It just goes to show that if you want something done, leave out French Presidents.

Daily Propaganda has been looking at the farcical trial of Saddam Hussein: Don't get me wrong - I believe Saddam was a cold blooded murderer responsible for decades of misery. I just want to know why he is not on trial for his true crimes.

… and Colin Campbell reflects on the western education system’s failure to address the issue: Even though the US has been at war in Iraq for three years, six in 10 young Americans could not find the country on a map of the world, a Roper poll conducted for National Geographic found.

Steve, at Opinion Dominion, reports a strange and sad thing within Israel: As if there weren't enough problems in Israel already, a fight is going on about a planned gay pride parade in Jerusalem next week. The police think it is more trouble than it is worth, and want it stopped. If it goes ahead, at least Conservative Jews and Muslims will be meeting on the street with a common aim, for a change. Somehow, I don't think that is the point the march organisers want to achieve.

When your blogsite explodes, as Cllr Gavin Ayling’s did some time back, it tends to wipe out any reference to Iraq or anything much else, for that matter. So, no commentary from Gavin on Iraq this time.

Jeffrey Archer, The Select Society and Sam Brett wisely steer clear of the topic. As for Tim Montgomerie, he may have addressed the issue on Doughty Street but I’d never know because Doughty can’t be accessed on the net over here, due to technical glitches.

Well, that winds up this Blogfocus and you’re invited to the next, on Tuesday evening at 21:00, London time. See you then.

[Disclaimer: except in one case, the comments above were all cut and pasted late last evening and so any developments today were unfortunately not included. Sorry if I missed your latest.]