I think often times there is a conflation of concepts when talking about death in war, especially in today's 4GW environment, that results in confusion about the causal relationship between the actors in play and the tangible results. I mentioned this earlier in context of the little girl being saved by the marine.
One concept is time:
- If one ignores the death count before X point in time, it can easily seem that there is an unbelievable slaughter "out of nowhere," one that wouldn't have happened if not for the actions at point X.
- If one adjusts the span of time one way or another, it can be easily manipulated to look as if deaths are dropping or rising. The context of why the changes are occurring are lost, and it's that context that is typically supplied by the person citing the change - regardless of its accuracy.
Another concept is identity:
- The AP often reports things such as, "Explosion in Baghdad kills 50" which is nearly useless information (unless you are related in some way to any of the 50) because it does not give any context. It could be a fuel line exploding due to poor maintenance, it could be a terrorist truck-bomb, it could be a US bomb missing (or hitting) a target. When you do find out what the cause was, it's often (at best) labeled as "insurgent" - which is a meaningless term due to the wide range of possible actors that could name. An Al Qaida insurgent, in the case of the most important act of terrorism in Iraq - the Golden Mosque bombing in Samarra - blowing up that target specifically to start a violent civil war, is entirely different from a Sunni insurgent (who very likely wouldn't have blown up a mosque at all), a Shi'ite insurgent or an agent of Quds force. Who did it? Why? How will the various factions respond?
- If an "insurgent" holds a child in front of him to shield himself from gunfire and the child gets shot or otherwise injured, who is responsible? If "insurgents" destroy local infrastructure (water, electricity, pipelines, etc.) daily, who is responsible for the resulting loss of services?
- Who represents the occupying force / Iraqi government support framework? Is it the USA, or the Allied coalition (UK, Oz, etc.)? If the claim is that there are not enough troops, who is responsible for the lack of troops?
To hear statements like, "Iraq was ruined by the American invasion and now it's a bloodbath over there" is so loaded with meaningless terms, it's impossible to address any one of them. There are actual, meaningful questions to be asked about the actions taken and the progress of events in Iraq, but those questions must have sufficient context and clarity if there is any true desire for meaningful answers.
GL, I'm going to shorthand this even though I shouldn't.
Pre-war, there was an enormous amount of political knife-fighting amongst NATO nations about what do to about Iraq. A majority of intelligence services, including our own, agreed about the existence of WMDs. There is data suggesting (although I personally believe falling short of proving) there was skullduggery intended to both humiliate the USA (by nations with vested interests, such as France, Russia, and Germany) and "sex up" reasons to invade/liberate Iraq. You may draw your own conclusions, but I typically recommend doing some cursory research first (of things that DON'T already agree with whatever you believe.)
So, the actions to be taken post Resolution 1441 were not solely based on WMD possession, but also on the actions of the regime to date - emphasized by the (then assumed) existence of WMDs.
That said, the final analysis through the Kay Report and the ultimate Duelfer Report, of the ISG, are very clear about at least three things I see as important.
One, Saddam Hussein was clearly non-compliant with any of the UN resolutions passed since Gulf War 1, resolutions that were passed in order to -avoid- continued combat operations I might add. In every way possible, it was his plan and intention to get out from under inspections -in order to rebuild and put into production WMD manufacturing- as soon as possible.
Two, there were no WMDs present in Iraq and their "existence" was for all intents and purposes, a hoax perpetuated by Saddam's regime unto itself. There are many theories why.
Three, most importantly to me at least, he clearly had the capacity to make good on point one should the inspections be completed or lifted - a point that was imminent.
To answer your question directly, I'd say this - we determine who has or intends to have WMDs (or other mass casualty plans, such as demolishing a major dam or sabotaging a nuclear plant) by gathering the best intelligence we can as much as we can and doing as much as possible to verify the authenticity of the data. That is not to say collect -perfect- or -infallible- data, but rather data that can give the most accurate picture possible at the moment.
Clearly "we" (which is difficult to define, as I include most of western civilization in that) did not have the best data about the possession of WMDs. For many, that is enough to invalidate the entirety of the liberation (as I see it.) So be it. I do not agree.
read more »
An unusual sensation, it took me a moment to recognize.
I'm happy.