Not too long ago the words "Wikileaks" and the name "Julian Assange" were not that widely known. Wikileaks was a curious website, where unofficial information would be posted, and governments would be upset about what was posted. However, the publicity generated in the past week has dwarfed all of that.
What has apparently been revealed is allied forces complicity in ignoring acts of torture by Iraqi government forces. The implication being that the US Administration is uninterested in the fate of Iraqi civilians. Now in and of itself it is disconcerting. If you genuinely wish Iraq to become a country that is a bastion of liberal open civil society and secular transparent accountable (and small) government it is unacceptable to tolerate an Iraqi government that acts with impunity against suspected insurgents. It is reasonable, always, for questions to be asked of governments engaged in military action when that action includes wilful blindness and tolerance of grievous acts of abuse.
Yet does Julian Assange actually want Iraq to become a liberal open civil society with a secular transparent accountable liberal democratic government? Who knows. What is fairly clear is that his actions are designed primarily not to expose shameful acts by the Iraqi authorities, but rather to damn the entire allied military presence in Iraq. The simple view of the Iraqi conflict, as spread by the leftwing peace movement (as distinguished by those who questioned the wisdom of the intervention rather than the motives) goes like this:
- Bush wanted to overthrow the Iraqi regime (probably true);
- It was all about oil (not true, but having a friendly regime in charge of Iraqi oil was helpful);
- A threat was fabricated regarding weapons of mass destruction (false) and terrorism (exaggerated yes, but not empty);
- The US and it allies invaded Iraq with no concern for civilian casualties or the fate of the Iraqi people (false); and last but far from least..
- The US and its allies are responsible for the deaths and killings since the overthrow of the Saddam regime.
Christopher Hitchens in Slate writes about the imbalance in the reporting on Iraq. You see the "anti-war" left want to portray all killing as being consequential of the invasion. No consideration of how many Saddam's regime of thugs would have killed (but you can ignore that because the US did in the 80s, so Saddam deserved protection from ever being overthrown by the US because of that).
He said "The continuing bloodbath is chiefly the result of an obscene alliance between the goons of the previous dictatorship and the goons of a would-be-future theocratic one. From the very first day after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, without ever issuing so much as a manifesto or a bill of grievances, this criminal gang awarded itself permission to use high explosives, assassination, torture, and rape against a population that was given no moment of breathing space after three decades of war and fascism."
Yet, those who opposed the US invasion in the West treated those who sought the Islamification of Iraq as heroes. Ignoring there suicide bombings, random executions and Taliban like suppression of speech (including music) in areas they would control.
He continues "Not long ago, I read an interview with Julian Assange in which he declared his ostensibly journalistic objective to be that of "ending" the war. Most edifying. The easiest way of ending it would be for one side to cease fighting it. (That almost happened in Iraq before the surge, when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and al-Qaida claimed control of a province or two.) I have an intuition that I know which side Assange wishes would capitulate."
Quite.
You see it is one thing to rightfully want to ensure that the Iraqi government acts with respect for individual rights and freedoms. It is another to be willfully blind towards the chief cause of the violence and killings in Iraq, and to be less than interested in the defeat of those who see the overthrow of Saddam an opportunity to create a brutal Islamist theocracy.
So yes, damn those allied soldiers who have acted with impunity, damn those in the Iraqi government who also do so. However, if one's primary concern is the people of Iraq, is it not equally appropriate to be damning the Iranian backed insurgents who wish to convert Iraq back into a brutal totalitarian tyranny, but with a new (and imperialist) master?
- Bush wanted to overthrow the Iraqi regime (probably true);
- It was all about oil (not true, but having a friendly regime in charge of Iraqi oil was helpful);
- A threat was fabricated regarding weapons of mass destruction (false) and terrorism (exaggerated yes, but not empty);
- The US and it allies invaded Iraq with no concern for civilian casualties or the fate of the Iraqi people (false); and last but far from least..
- The US and its allies are responsible for the deaths and killings since the overthrow of the Saddam regime.
Christopher Hitchens in Slate writes about the imbalance in the reporting on Iraq. You see the "anti-war" left want to portray all killing as being consequential of the invasion. No consideration of how many Saddam's regime of thugs would have killed (but you can ignore that because the US did in the 80s, so Saddam deserved protection from ever being overthrown by the US because of that).
He said "The continuing bloodbath is chiefly the result of an obscene alliance between the goons of the previous dictatorship and the goons of a would-be-future theocratic one. From the very first day after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, without ever issuing so much as a manifesto or a bill of grievances, this criminal gang awarded itself permission to use high explosives, assassination, torture, and rape against a population that was given no moment of breathing space after three decades of war and fascism."
Yet, those who opposed the US invasion in the West treated those who sought the Islamification of Iraq as heroes. Ignoring there suicide bombings, random executions and Taliban like suppression of speech (including music) in areas they would control.
He continues "Not long ago, I read an interview with Julian Assange in which he declared his ostensibly journalistic objective to be that of "ending" the war. Most edifying. The easiest way of ending it would be for one side to cease fighting it. (That almost happened in Iraq before the surge, when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and al-Qaida claimed control of a province or two.) I have an intuition that I know which side Assange wishes would capitulate."
Quite.
You see it is one thing to rightfully want to ensure that the Iraqi government acts with respect for individual rights and freedoms. It is another to be willfully blind towards the chief cause of the violence and killings in Iraq, and to be less than interested in the defeat of those who see the overthrow of Saddam an opportunity to create a brutal Islamist theocracy.
So yes, damn those allied soldiers who have acted with impunity, damn those in the Iraqi government who also do so. However, if one's primary concern is the people of Iraq, is it not equally appropriate to be damning the Iranian backed insurgents who wish to convert Iraq back into a brutal totalitarian tyranny, but with a new (and imperialist) master?