Koffi Inane, pulling his best Jimmah expression, cast into words his sorrow with the situation in Iraq in a BBC interview:
Iraq’s national security adviser says he is shocked by UN head Kofi Annan’s suggestion that the average Iraqi is worse off than under Saddam Hussein.
Mouwaffaq al-Rubaie also accused the UN of shying away from its responsibility towards the Iraqi people.The UN secretary general, who leaves office after 10 years on 31 December, told the BBC that the situation in Iraq was now “much worse” than a civil war.
He also expressed his sadness at being unable to prevent the invasion in 2003.
The Iraqi National Security Advisor disagreed:
Mr Rubaie rejected Mr Annan’s comments, asking: “Doesn’t Kofi Annan differentiate between the mass killing of Iraqis by the security and intelligence apparatus of Saddam Hussein and the present indiscriminate killings of civilians, Iraqi civilians, by the al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq?”
He added: “I’m shocked and stunned by what Kofi Annan alluded to, that the condition was better under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.”
He admitted that the failure to prevent the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a major blow to the UN, one from which the organisation was only beginning to recover.
“It’s healing but we are not there yet, it hasn’t healed yet, and we feel the tension still in this organisation as a result of that.”
Referring to the invasion, Mr Rubaie said: “The UN, I believe, shied away from the responsibilities towards the Iraqi people in 2003.”
Although the UN vowed “never again” in the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide and killings at Srebrenica, the organisation has been unable to end a three-year crisis in Sudan’s Darfur region, where more than 200,000 people are thought to have died.
“It is deeply, deeply disappointing and it’s tragic,” said Mr Annan. “But we do not have the resources or the will to confront the situation.”
He added: “I’m shocked and stunned by what Kofi Annan alluded to, that the condition was better under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.â€Â
– Someone should explain to Mr Rubaie that the “conditions were better” for Annan because of the Oil-for-Food Chits. Kofi’s upset because the gravy train for him and his son are coming to an end.
I agree with you in part, BBh. On the other hand, I do believe that like Carter he sincerely believes that what he says is right. He’s just another person in a situation of power and accountability who finds it an easy matter to bend his perception of the world to accomodate his own best interests, and who sees no contradiction in admitting that the institution of which he is head lacks the will to do what is necessary, while simultaneously doing everything it can to obstruct those who do not. Failure of will is a cause for deep disappointment rather than radical critique of the institution. It is always a matter for deep disappointment when one cannot make what is right congruent with what is expedient.
Oh, what a world! where good intentions by themselves do not improve our lot. Deeply, deeply disappointing.
So Kofi thinks it was better when ”4,000 to 5,000 children [were] dying unnecessarily every month due to the impact of sanctions”?
Kofi and the BBC can’t keep their propaganda straight.
Dan, this guy says the greatest failing of his tenure was that he couldn’t stop us from going into Iraq. This is the guy on whose watch Darfur continues to take place, and East Timor took place, and two south Asian states went nuclear while Iran hurries to catch up.
Kofi Annan sincerely believes we screwed up his retirement package.
Carter is just demented.
You know, that’s 576,000 or more deaths, and I didn’t even need to make it up, erm…check with The Lancet.
“You know, that’s 576,000 or more deaths…”
– Why my goodness…that would make the OFF scam Husseins real WMD…..Who would have thought it….Of course those were just uneducated third worlders, so the “disloyal opposition” would write them off as not counting….
I believe the UN was better off under Boutros-Boutros Gali.
I’m just wondering: how do you the kids who were dying without medication and proper sanitation, etc are not dying now too? I’m not saying they are or are not. I’m all I’m saying is that we don’t know.
I think this entire argument is too simplistic. Mr. Annan is correct that for the vast majority of Iraqis life was better under Saddam. After all, they could avoid politics and—hopefully—not be murdered indiscriminately. Now, you get blown up for going to the market or “street vending” the wrong product, or far following a US humvee too closely. Iraq is a much more random place for death now.
However, Mr.Annan’s comments are hopelessly short-sighted. Hussein murdered people of political ability and intelligence; the kind of folks who make a society run well. While in his grip, Iraq was never going to enter the 1980’s. In the very long run, Mr. Hussein had to go for Iraq to grow up as a country.
Kofi should no indiscriminate murder in Iraq existed pre-2003 as well as today. Presently, though, everyone’s a target.
Well, it’s all about security, neoc. The security of knowing that you were only likely to be murdered if you somehow offended the Ba’athist regime.
I hate illiterates!
Any who died because of sanctions were really dying because Saddam and Kofi wwere stealing their lunch money.
If we knew it with Saddam in power, we’d know it now. The reason you don’t know it isn’t happening now is because that doesn’t fit the preferred narrative. Try reading some Milblogs. We do know.
Nonsense. Baghdad/Anbar is not all of Iraq. Try selling that crap to the Kurds or to the Marsh Arabs. Death may be taking more people by surprise than it did under Saddam, but it isn’t taking any more of them out than it did under his tender mercies.
Right. Uday Hussein is not in Iraq’s future. It’s a good thing. It’s hope.
I’m just wondering: how do you the kids who were dying without medication and proper sanitation, etc are not dying now too?
– Well if the 30 odd hospitals/clinics going up all over the country, to add to the 9 that have already been built, where there were exactly two in the whole sheebang is any indication of improved care then we have an idea.
– You have to weigh the fact that 95% of the killing, insurgency driven, is occuring in the Sunni triangle, which admittedly contains the larger part of the population. But the Kurds are very settled, have the largest malition, and stability, so it’s down to two sect’s, which is still mondo difficult, but doable, if we can get the Iraqi’s themselves to start acrrying their own water. At some point, the attacks should taper off, as all the old scores are lost with the dead. Hell of a way to have to run an airline, but you go to war with the enemy you have. Even a warped Democracy, smack dab in the center of the embroiled ME, to augment Israel, will drive a dagger through the heart of the Wahhabists.
Surprisingly, I believe you are making an honest argument. You clearly are the type who would gladly surrender your (and likely our) freedoms for a (false) sense of security.
Yes all they had to do was avoid politics, or possibly just avoid pissing off any neighbor who might hold a grudge and might have an in with the secret police. Or maybe just avoid saying anything impolitic or unguarded in front of their own children. Children indoctrinated to love and fear their dear leader above all else. Children expected to rat out even their own kin.
Yes, the Iraqis were so much better off under Saddam. Perhaps you would be better off emigrating to North Korea, then you wouldn’t have to burden your little mind with politics.
Kofi Annan can kiss my ass, corrupt and amoral bastard that he is.
So can you, neconsstink. But that’s because you’re a tool.
ThomasD, I do burden my mind with politics. That’s why I’m here amongst others who do as well.
I think Pablo’s point about Uday not being part of Iraq’s future is the best non-neoconsstink point ever made on this board.
In the end you guys and gals are wrong that a) the war was a good idea and b) that Iraq is just going swimmingly and the media is ruining everyone’s party
BUT
as someone who opposed the invasion and occupation to begin with (and other like me), isn’t the question about Iraq’s future tricky? How can you it was better in 2003 than 2013? Car bombs won’t be going off forever. As a faithful reader of Robert Kaplan’s books, I am not under any real delusion that Iraq will be a peaceful, Western-style democracy. But, whichever strongman rules Iraq (Mubarak-esque) will be chastened, will be forced to allow institutions to evolve which challenge him and in the end those institutions (not American A-10’s) create democracy.
What’s the answer from the peaceniks on whether life is better when that happens (as it most likely will, I tend to believe in progress)?
I think in the short term Mr. Annan has a point, but in the long run, there’s a good chance he’s dead wrong.
PS You guys can be pissed at him all you want over the over-blown oil-for-food crap, but you miss his greatest sin: ignoring the cries of the Rwandan Tutsis as they were being slaughtered by their neighbors. Mr. Annan not only ignored their cries, he actively worked against UN involvement in stopping the genocide by conspiring with Bill’s administration to keep from calling it from being called “genocide.†If there is a Hell, then Mr. Annan is gonna have some ‘splaining to do.
You should let “the vast majority of Iraqis” like Mr. Rubaie know that they are worse off. You know, so they won’t keep contradicting you in official statements and opinion polls.
But what do they know, right? They only live in Iraq every day of their lives, as opposed to American Liberals, who have the greatest qualification to judge life in Iraq—they hate Bush.
That’s so disengenuous. The media isn’t trying to ruin everyone’s party – just the Republican one.
Not a one of is is unaware of that, but “You cannot get mad at him over this egregious sin of comission because he also did this worse sin of inaction.” doesn’t fly.
NUH UH YOU’RE WRONG ABOUT A!
Oddly enough, I almost agree with Mr. Stinky for once. The question is, then, what should we have done about Rwanda? The UN’s going to sit on its ass because one Security Council veto power would never approve it, so you have to do something “unilateral”. And what would that unilateral action be? Angry voices of disapproval? Frowning in their general direction?
No, you’d need to actually do something to stop the Hutu from killing the Tutsi. That means boots on the ground, in a war zone. And then six months later, once the media is filled with heart-wrenching photos of dead boy soldiers who wrongly thought they could take US soldiers and marines, and of the occasional American soldier or marine who just was in the wrong place at the wrong time, you’d probably reconsider.
“Never Again” should have meant something. We’re not perfect; we’re human. We can only try. I know I don’t have the correct answer as for what to do. But I know sitting there and second guessing the only people in the world who seem to want to follow through on that dream is not the right answer.
If Kofi wanted to keep the UN from stopping that genocide, then that’s on his heads and he can take it up with the Belgians and the Canadians. Nonetheless, my government knew what was happening and could have acted “unilaterally” (with help from all the African nations we could “encourage” to help us). We could have also rolled the UN (in case you missed the last two Gulf Wars), but Bill and his friends still had the bitter taste of Somalia in their collective mouth.
In other words American military interventions take will and Billy didn’t have will before Rwanda, whereas George has never lacked certainity or will.
By the way, the Canadians and the Belgians were able to protect plenty of people without firing a shot. Annan and Boutros Boutros-Ghali pulled them from Kigali. At any time during the genocide, when outside cameras focused on the murderers, they stopped killing people (catch the movie Hotel Rwanda). Point is, American troops, disciplined, well-supplied and possessing unbelivable firepower would have fired once and the Hutus would have broken for Congo (which is what they did when the Tutsi rebel force came marching through).
Intervention is not wrong. There are ways to do it right: see Bosnia, see Tsunami relief, see see Kosovo, see Berlin airlift, see Haiti (about 10 times), see Panama (execution, not idea), see first Gulf War, see no fly zones in Iraq, see Darfur (oops)
So your saying that the invasion of Iraq for the reasons stated in HR whatever was wrong, but Bosnia was right?
Iraq, today, would be a better place had we not done anything?
It seems to me that the jury is still out on whether the UN is “unable to end” genocide in Darfur. It will remain out until the UN, you know, actually tries to end it.
Of course Bosnia is “right”. No Americans have died and there is peace.
Besides, pursuant to the discussion about Rwanda, NATO went into Bosnia for the right reason: to do universal good. Bosnias, Croats, and Bosnian Serbs wanted peace. That’s why they were in Dayton. They needed a peacekeeping group everyone could trust. That’s why we agreed to go.
Iraq was not at war. Iraq did not ask us. In Iraq Sunnis weren’t killing Shia. Iraq was a war of aggression and future generations will be asking teachers “How did they screw up like that?”
In fact, Rusty, the Bosnian parallel is the only reason to stay in Iraq. You know, Colin Powell’s “Pottery Barn” rule. My cousin, who just returned from Haditha, told me it would a mistake to leave Iraq, because the people they supported there would be killed. I have yet to hear a good plan for leaving or staying and the fact that we have are in a mess with no end in sight is the fault of the President and the Vice President. They are Morons
Gulf II was an extension of Gulf I, brought about by the failure of Iraq to comply with the conditions of the truce and their overt agression against our monitoring aircraft, plus various other threats.
There were some deaths in Bosnia, just not ours. Pontification is easier when your audience has a short memory, ain’t it?