Monday, 21 of May of 2012

Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

In a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.

• About
• Ask for Help
• FAQ
• Posting a Diary
• Report Abusive Behavior
• Rules of the Road

Print

Ontological Blur in Iraq

Who are we there in Iraq, who are our allies, who are our enemies? Is there really any difference now between these different identities?

Yesterday, I wrote here on the Irregular Times Diaries about how the Iraq War has raised epistemological questions, such as, How can we know the difference between a police commando and a gunman dressed as a police commando?

You see, there were reports yesterday morning that “gunmen dressed as police commandos” had kidnapped people from an Iraqi scientific research facility. That curious phrase caught my attention, because it implied a distinction between someone dressed as a police commando and an actual police commando. Given the chaos and corruption throughout Iraq, I didn’t think that distinction held merit.

Now, this morning, my suspicions are confirmed. Six policemen from the area around the research facility have been arrested for their involvement in the kidnapping – including the local police chief.

So, when the police chief sends in commandos with guns, dressed up like police commandos, to kidnap people, how are those involved not police commandos? Why were they called “gunmen dressed as police commandos” and “gunmen in Iraqi police uniforms”.

There’s an ontological question at the root of this, and a tragic one at that: When the police that we trained are now recruiting people who had been in government-supporting militias to take part in actions dressed as police, how are they not police? Who are the police, if they are running illegal operations? Who is standing up, and who is standing down? Who are we there in Iraq, who are our allies, who are our enemies? Is there really any difference now between these different identities?

---

Date: November 15, 2006

Author: Peregrin Wood

Categories: general, mysteries, war and peace

Tags:

(458 votes, average: 2.97 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Leave a comment

Comments RSS TrackBack 7 comments

• 

  Luke

  in November 15th, 2006 @ 17:36

  Don’t worry, your really overthinking it. Our Fearless Leader and Expert Prognosticator George Bush can tell everyone apart simply by consulting his gut. You have nothing to be worried about!

  ---

• 

  An American Mick

  in November 16th, 2006 @ 10:20

  Peregrin, I tried for a moment after I read this to think of a case where our government put someone in power and it worked out well, with freedom and democracy for all. I couldn’t think of one.

  ---

• 

  Alan

  in November 17th, 2006 @ 02:54

  Mick, what about Germany? That’s the example people keep coming back to–is Iraq Germany or is it Yugoslavia, that broke apart into ethnic splinters?

  ---

• 

  An American Mick

  in November 17th, 2006 @ 13:26

  Germany could be a good example, yes. I suppose I wasn’t thinking in terms of us putting people in power there, but actually letting the Germans pick their new leaders. I could be wrong, and if so then Germany’s definitely a successful example.

  As for Iraq, I think it will be worse than Yugoslavia, and I think we’ll be powerless to stop that from happening.

  ---

• 

  Alan

  in November 17th, 2006 @ 15:29

  Even before the Iraq war started, there were those in the middle east who were talking about a “new Marshall Plan” for the middle east. Iraq used to be the economic engine of the region, with anything manufactured nearby being bought by iraqis. But you don’t have a marshal plan without a war. The arabs here were not so much in favor of the war, but were in favor of rebuilding Iraq, which everyone knows has suffered for years with crumbling infrastructure from endless wars and then sanctions. The when dubya stood on the deck of the aircraft carrier and said mission accomplished, I thought, okay now the marshall plan starts and the arab world will see that there is a justification to the U.S. actions. But no. Dubya said “we do not do nation-building”.

  We dropped the ball here and we will pay for it many times over.

  ---

• 

  An American Mick

  in November 20th, 2006 @ 15:04

  You’re absolutely right, Alan. When I was in military intelligence, Saddam was seen as a huge stabilizer in the region. I was stunned when he was removed from power. Not because I liked him – he was always sort of like Al Capone in with the baseball bat in his cabinet meetings. I was stunned because dubya did something that flew in the face of every intelligence analysis I ever read, which was that any alternative to Saddam would be a disaster. It seems that those analyses were pretty accurate.

  We should have done things very differently from the beginning. Now, I think that rebuilding is out of our hands. I don’t see how we can rebuild anything with zero credibility in the region. There’s already intense scandal over where the ‘rebuilding’ cash is going.

  ---

• 

  Alan

  in November 29th, 2006 @ 00:25

  Perhaps Saddam held Iraq together in the same way Tito held Yugoslavia together, by sheer force of personality–or something. Sooner or later he would have died, though, and we still would have been faced with the stability problem, as well as Uday and Kusai.

  I have heard the there is a split between field personnel and analysts, with analysts definately the poor relations, but you would think someone would have bothered to read the analyses.

  ---

Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion uses WordPress as content manager.