Today's Holmgang on TV2 discussed the scenes of joy that are finally emerging from Baghdad and Iraq, asking if the Americans had perhaps done a good job after all. (To this 90% of the viewers replied yes, though Holmgang phone voters tend to be unrepresentative of the people.)

Foreign Minister Jan Petersen was on the program. I saw Prime Minister Bondevik on TV earlier today, "welcoming" the apparent end of Saddam's regime as if it was the most obvious thing in the world, and all I could think was you didn't want this to happen, you bastard. Petersen took a similar line. No sign of a change of heart, no regret, only platitudes. Obviously, he said, it was great that Saddam (who "everyone agrees is a tyrant") had fallen from power, and now it was time to rebuild, in which the UN naturally should play a major role. That's true, it is great that Saddam is gone, but you didn't want this to happen.

Erling Borgen, spokesman for the peace movement, (which is supported by just about every significant NGO in Norway), ranted on with his usual paranoid anti-Americanism. I predicted last week that his particularly offensive style of anti-Americanism would turn Norwegians off the peace movement, especially when contrasted to scenes of liberation like the ones we saw today. That hasn't happened yet - a poll earlier this week still showed about three fourths of the people against the war. But I'm still hoping, and if anyone can turn Norway off that particular form of anti-Americanism, I think it's Erling Borgen. We'll see on Saturday, when the next big peace demo is being held.

More interesting were the opinions of three Iraqis who were invited to studio. Two of them supported the war, one making the apt observation that the tearing down of that statue by Saddam in central Baghdad today, (which has been shown on Norwegian TV as it has everywhere else), was symbolic both of Iraq's past and of Iraq's future. First, you'll remember, the Iraqi people spends many hours trying to pull it down themselves, without success. Then the Americans come and do it for them. The Americans first places an American flag on the statue, and then takes it down and replaces it with an Iraqi flag. He's right, that is symbolic, almost suspiciously so. But no, of course it wasn't arranged, and yes I think we saw demonstrated, for the first time, how a large number of citizens of Baghdad really feel about Saddam's dictatorship, when they know they're not being shot for expressing it. (Then again, I'd enjoy tearing down the statues and posters of a politician I actually liked, too, if I had to watch his smiling face all around me, every damn hour of the day.)

The third Iraqi, a young woman, while claiming that war could never, ever be justified, expressed with a shaking voice a hope that Saddam would not be captured alive, that he had died a painful death. A trial would be too good for him, and she hoped instead for him to be picked apart, piece by piece, while still alive. I'm inclined to agree. (Too bad the British have stopped practicing hanging, drawing and quartering.)

She also pointed out, herself having Iraqi soldiers in her family, something I feel is often being overlooked: that Iraqi soldiers are just as much victims of Saddam as Iraqi civilians are. Oddly, I don't feel very sad at the images of dead and wounded civilians. Obviously it is sad, it's terrible, but I expected that. I expected civilian casualties in the order of maybe a few thousand people. I knew that the Americans would try to minimize this number, and that there was really no way to fight this war without civilians dying at all. I didn't expect Iraqi soldiers to die by the tens of thousands. I haven't heard any estimates on the total number of casualties, but from the reports it sounds like a large number of young Iraqi men felt compelled to waste their lives against a vastly superior enemy, for just about the worst cause in the world: The vanity of a mad tyrant. These people were Iraq's future too, as were their wives and children back home. Saddam took that away, in a last, pointless act of suicidal stupidity. I really do hope he's dead, and that it was painful, and that it was lonely.

Obviously the war isn't over, but as to the question of whether the Americans have done a good job in Iraq, I for one reply with a strong affirmative. You've liberated a people. Good job, and good luck introducing them to democracy. (But don't let it go to your heads, ok?)

All the anti-war loud mouths must really be sad that there are so few dead civilians. This must seem like the predictable end of a bad American movie to them.

So predictable. The hero strugles against all odds and wins. The hero is praised as a liberator.

How predictable? No homosexual relationships. No marxists themes. Americans are so low brow.

What do you mean "don't let it go to your heads"? On to Oslo!

With the yapping "donkeys" braying, the US is not likely to "let it go to our head"; however, we're also not likely to let it go out of our hands for determining how best to help the Iraqis help themselves. [the UN can just shut up and do as they're told to help, not run it]

The war was the easy part, far from being a heroic struggle. The strongest military in the world defeated the poorly trained, poorly equipped, badly lead army of a starving nation. I hope nobody lets that go to their head!! Now comes the hard (and interesting) part. . . finding out what we (by we I mean "us humans") have gained by all this. Will Iraq splinter into a half-dozen parts, as paybacks and vendettas come into the open? or will they dance arm-in-arm along the banks of the Euphrates?

Oh. It was an heroic struggle. But not against Saddam. The struggle was against the UN, old Europe and all leftists in America and around the world.

Give Bush credit. He was all alone. I doubt it feels good to be so hated and protested all over the world. But I guess it's better to be loved in Iraq than in Europe.

I second Shark Week's comments: it was a heroic struggle against the UN, old lefties, Europe, etc.

And I do give Bush credit. I think I will be voting for him in 2004, - and I was a pro-Clinton Democrat.

Every time I hear 'the war was easy, because' I think of Vietnam or the Spanish Armada. It's way too easy for the art-of-war-naive to take for granted all the intangibles that go into successful war-fighting. There are alot of ways to defeat or bog down a superior force. This was a real war, and the U.S. fought it (has been fighting it) brilliantly.

Bjorn, you're exactly right about the catastrophic level of casualties that were inflicted on the Iraqi military. It's likely to be on the order of several tens of thousands before this is over (i.e., after the final battle at Tikrit where all the "dead-enders" will fight to the last). The average Joe Iraqi in the regular army or the Republican Guards divisions had the misfortune to be in a 20th Century military going up against a 21st Century military. It was as big a mismatch as the Polish horse cavalry going up against German tanks in 1939, indeed, maybe even more so.

It is too bad that so many had to die for a bad cause, but many of them in the Republican Guards, Special Republican Guards, Iraqi Intelligence Services, etc., were the thugs who had been oppressing the people of Iraq. They had to be removed, because they had no place in a liberated Iraq. If we didn't kill them, then their own people would.

Bjorn,

So glad to read your sensible and informative comments. It is lonely having "conservative" views here in California. Seeing our young soldiers and listening to their views is truly inspiring for me. It gives me hope for our future.It is so astounding to see how unthinkingly "left" much of Europe is. How do you and others see long-term European attitudes changing, if at all?

Milan: imagine how lonely it is to have "conservative" - and pro-American - views in Norway!

Markku: I can only imagine. Also, I too voted for Clinton twice but gained my sanity during the last election. My big regret is that I was a Regan hater earlier in life. I've totally revised my opinion and was not able to enjoy and appreciate his presidency as much as I should have.

Milan: Who knows? But if it does, it'll be through non-extremist right-wing populism, which is already a significant force in Norway, (through the Progress Party.)

The internet could also play a role, (as well as, of course, the natural tendency of people everywhere to see through bullshit in the long run). Norway currently sees the world through the eyes of a generation of left-wing journalists, but through the web we can get information from all kinds of sources - left-wing, right-wing, middle-wing, sane, insane - and there's a limit to how many false things you can believe about something you have first-hand information about. (That's the optimistic theory anyway, and I'm an optimist.)

Hey Milan,

Out of curiosity, what policy issues initially attracted you to Clinton, and which ones changed prior to your switch? I voted for Reagan twice, mainly due to agreement over fiscal policy (Milton Friendman and Thomas Sowell rock!), and because the Dems didn't have any candidates who had anything to offer regarding foreign policy.

Hiya Beorn. Thought I should post my first post in your blog today.

First, the anti-war movement. As I study at Blindern, I get to see a lot of it first hand. Now, there are several posters around. Some say "USA out of Iraq NOW!", others ask people to participate in the upcoming demo.

As one of the few pro-war-on-saddam people around, I've debated the issue quite a bit on some local mailinglists. One of the main concerns NOW seems to be that people find it scary that the US is the lone superpower (hyperpower?) left, and that they don't care about the UN nor international law. They also question the legality of the invasion of iraq.

As you well know (but your other readers don't) is that I'm fully for the removal of Saddam through military means, but that I'm quite worried about how the US had treated the UN -- and how international law will be adapted in the future. As you also know, I'm really do not like the official US excuse for attacking Iraq (WMD's). If that was the reason, the weapons inspectors should've been given more time, and given evidence.

Now, if they just wanted to remove a dictator and liberate a people - maybe, just maybe they should give that as The Official Reason? Of course, that again would really be bad if one views it from the viewpoint of international law, sovereignity and so forth ..

Oh, and to other comments in this blog. The struggle against the UN and Europe can in my opinion absolutely not be characterized as heroic. That struggle was a charade at best, and the US came out lookling like hypocrites. In my opinion. And hey - I'm all for removing the likes of Saddam.

Rune, the view of the U.N. is a bit different on this side of the Atlantic. Many Americans saw it this way: The U.N. had promulgated 17 resolutions over 12 years, and showed no sign of any inclination to ENFORCE them. An organization that issues resolutions with no intent or capability of enforcing them is merely a debating society. THAT is why the U.S. didn't bother messing around with the U.N. any more after it became obvious that the French would veto any 18th resolution put forth by the U.S. If the U.N. is now a "dead man walking" (and it is), blame the French.

As for the peace protesters who now think that the Coalition forces should leave Iraq immediately, just what exactly do they think would be the result if we did? Would the Iraqis put their arms around each other in a big group hug as democracy spontaneously broke out? I don't think so! You'd see a civil war break out immediately, with many, many times as many civilian casualties as Iraq has suffered in this war. Only the armed forces of the U.S., Great Britain, Australia and our other allies will be able to establish and keep the peace.

BarCodeKing, I'm aware that the view of the U.N. is quite a bit different in various parts of the world, however, it is (or, was) the nexus of international law - if such a beast exist (or .. existed).

Now, about the resolutions. The U.S didn't care about the 17th resolution, even though Iraq fully cooperated with the weapons inspectors. The weapons inspectors has heavily critisized the U.S, and the way they handled the inspections.

As I posted previously, I'm all for removing Saddam, but I really don't like "The Official Reason" - as I do not think it can be defended.

About the peace protesters. I really don't know how they're heads are screwed on. It should be obvious for anyone what would happen if the U.S. pulled out their forces now, or right after removing the current regime (well, it's mostly done now).

Now, there are lots of reasons (in my opinion) to critisize how the U.S wields their power, both economically, politically and maybe military - but the current situation in Iraq is not one of those reasons.

Hi Allen,

To answer your question, I switched because I had slowly been becoming disaffected with the Democrats. It was not specific economic issues such as you had. I saw more of a promotion of "victimization," non-responsiveness to outrageous statements by Sharpton, Jackson and such ilk. Much of old American self-reliance had been jettisoned to be dependent on "Big Brother." This became totally unacceptable to me. I would still describe myself as a Truman/Kennedy Democrat but as Reagan said he did not leave the Democratic party, it left him. The old Democrats still like free enterprise and self-reliance but since Carter they have definately disappeared.

Milan:

'I saw more of a promotion of "victimization,"...Much of old American self-reliance had been jettisoned to be dependent on "Big Brother."'

Your comments would be heretical in the social democratic welfare states of Scandinavia...

Rune-Kristian: I don't like the phrase Weapons of Mass Destruction. It allows people to make weird rhetorical side-jumps whenever they feel like it, from bio-/chem-weapons to nukes, and from nukes to bio-/chem-weapons.

Is there really any doubt at all that Iraq still has biological and chemical weapons? I don't recall if any has been found yet, but we know that 1) Iraq had plenty of it, 2) that Iraq has used it in the past, and that 3) the UN was kicked out in 1998. It's not a question about why Iraq would have kept these weapons, it's a question about why on earth they would have destroyed them.

About nuclear weapons, there is only a _risk_ that Saddam would have acquired them, but that risk justifies the measures. Even if there is only a 10% chance that there is a bomb in a shopping mall, doesn't that justify an extreme, expensive and annoying measure such as clearing the mall and sending in a bomb squad? Again, we know that 1) Iraq's been trying to build nuclear weapons for two decades, 2) that it's almost succeeded twice, and 3) that the UN was kicked out in 1998. Again, it's not a question of why he would build nuclear weapons, but about why he wouldn't, knowing the advantage such a possession would give him. (Immunity from attack, for one thing, a weapon for blackmailing his neighbours, and a terrorist weapon against the US.)

As for the weapons inspections this year possible working, the UN was allowed in only because of the realistic threat of war presented by a houndred thousand American troops in the area, and it would have been kicked out no sooner than the moment those troops left. Seeing as Iraq did not cooperate with the UN, finding evidence of nuclear facilities could have taken many years. (The inspections were only intended to verify cooperation.) Do you think the US would have kept a major military force in the area for that long? Why would they?

Bjorn: A nice summation! I fully concur.

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/176

diablogger.com: http://www.diablogger.com/archives/000222.html, April 10, 2003 09:24 AM

Philosophy's only right when it looks with dismay in the mirror. By the end of the 19th century, the philosophy