Failure in Iraq

November 20, 2006

Human Rights Watch has called Saddam Hussein’s trial “flawed” and unfounded. According to the organization’s report, there have been substantial procedural inconsistencies, which make the trial and its ruling “fundamentally unfair”.

This is quite a blow to the notion that the US has had success in establishing a to-be-democracy in Iraq. The country’s first real trial being unfair is not a way to establish a viable democracy and is not something the US should be promoting or condoning. The BBC reports that Hussein’s lawyer has said that his client’s appeal process has been interfered with; also not something that lends much credibility to the idea of democracy in Iraq.

The HRW report comes as a wave of anti-Iraq-policy sentiment is present in the US, following the US midterm elections. Even Henry Kissinger has spoken out about the war in Iraq, stating that a military victory is no longer possible. Kissinger doesn’t see the new Iraqi government as capable of ending the civil war and sectarian violence that is rampant in the country.

Saddam Hussein’s death sentence will not help with this violence, especially if there is suggestion that the trial was unfair. And this puts the US into an uncomfortable dilemma: it is already clear that the US will be redeploying its troops within the next year, yet by exiting Iraq the US may be doing so having failed at its goals in the country.

Advertisements

10 Responses to “Failure in Iraq”

  1. J Says:

    Yet another debacle in the US’s handling of the Iraq war. He should have been disappeared, or perhaps shot while trying to escape. If he’s executed the Sunnis will go even crazier.

  2. unitedcats Says:

    LOL@ “shot while trying to escape.” Or maybe a hunting accident? 😉 I would have prefered Saddam be turned over to an international tribunal, but agree that Bushco’s Star Chamber was about the worst possible option. JMO —Doug

  3. lightcontrast Says:

    Have you guys heard that Sunday, Iraqi president Jalal Talabani intends to travel to Iran to meet with Ahmedinejad about 3-way talks-Iraq, Iran, and Syria? Notice that the US was not included. Will the US want to meet with Iran and Syria?


  4. Hey Light,

    I did hear. I think the Syrian counterpart was also invited.

    Going to be looking into it more tonight.

    Dmitri

  5. unitedcats Says:

    Yes, Ahmedinejad is a clever fellow. Bush has no real choice but to suck it in with as much grace as he can master. The beauty if course is that it is a win-win option on Ahmedinejad’s part, no matter how Bush responds Ahmedinejad looks good.

    This little thing illustrates in a nutshell the folly of Bush’s “in your face” foreign policy. When playing chess or any game you have to make moves that will leave you with good options no matter what happens. Bush doesn’t understand this, and has put the USA in a situation where on many fronts all we have are lose-lose options. This is the crisis in Iraq, we stay…we’re hosed. We pull out…we’re hosed. Lose-lose. Thank you Bushco. Idiots. And now our enemies are going to start scoring on us while we stand there in a bear trap looking stupid. Heck, our “friends” have been scoring on us if you follow the news, why not?

    /end rant, LOL JMO
    Doug

  6. unitedcats Says:

    Or to answer your question, it doesn’t matter what Bush does! Ahmedinejad is going to look good either way! I don’t think Bush will though, but I would be happy to be surprised.

    Doug


  7. Yes. And the thing is that the summit this weekend will create the Iran-Syria-Iraq framework without US or British participation.

    Dmitri

  8. J Says:

    I’m curious what the Saudis are up to. They despise the shia (Iran) and will almost certainly stop at nothing to prevent Iran from becoming the de facto ruler of Iraq. At some point, that entire place is going up in flames. Be ready to walk to work when that happens. I just hope our people are out of there when it blows. With Iranian troops surging over the border and and guerrillas harrassing our over-extended supply lines from Kuwait, we’ll be in a “real” war, and one we probably can’t win without using tactical nukes.


  9. J,

    The Saudis have had and continue to have differences with Iran. However, in recent years there’s been more and more cooperation with special exchange programs happening.

    And while Iran will be influential, I’m not sure if they’ll actually succeed in becoming a de facto ruler of Iraq. Doesn’t seem that likely, though who knows. The only way that Iran could find itself in a de facto ruler position is if a sectarian partitioning of Iraq takes place, but that also doesn’t seem likely…and for that reason.

    And you should check out Doug’s blog for some of the stuff the Saudi’s have been up to.

    Dmitri

  10. unitedcats Says:

    The Saudi’s are doing what any self respecting tribe would do if they found themselves living on the biggest gold mine in history. They are arming themselves to the teeth, playing their jealous neighbours off against each other, and stashing trillions in off shore accounts. I will blog more upon this, thanks for the plug. 🙂

    Yes, a ground war with Iran would be a terrible thing, I’m all for avoiding it. A regionally powerful Iran is not the end of the world, they are actually one of the most pro-western nations in the region and we would be better served cooperating with them than fighting them.

    JMO Doug


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: