Slashdot Mirror
The Destruction of Iraq's Once-Great Universities
Harperdog writes "Hugh Gusterson has written a devastating article about what has happened to Iraq's once great university system, and puts most of the blame for its total collapse on the U.S. Quoting: 'While American troops guarded the Ministries of Oil and the Interior but ignored cultural heritage sites, looters ransacked the universities. For example, the entire library collections at the University of Baghdad's College of Arts and at the University of Basra were destroyed. The Washington Post's Rajiv Chandresekara described the scene at Mustansiriya University in 2003: "By April 12, the campus of yellow-brick buildings and grassy courtyards was stripped of its books, computers, lab equipment and desks. Even electrical wiring was pulled from the walls. What was not stolen was set ablaze, sending dark smoke billowing over the capital that day."'"
Some have even suggested that it was on purpose.
I remember seeing footage of a curator of a Baghdad museum weeping at the destruction that had been wrought upon the building and its collections.
Bullshit, if you destabilize a government, as much as dictatorial it might be, you ought to take the responsability of the outcome.
Read the Geneva Conventions if you don't believe me.
So Iraq was supposed to be a push over, and the US was going to install a puppet government that would do what the US oil cartel wanted. This would be a counterbalance to Saudi oil power. Remember Bush and Cheney are both originally oil men, and they wanted to go back to the "good old days" of western dominance of Middle Eastern oil production.
There was no planning about anything except securing the oil resources. They made no plans about securing any civil society, not just the schools. They didn't even have a real plan to secure any weapons, or even the known stockpiles of uranium ore (yellow cake) that Iraq had obtained. Access to weapons was one of the things that made the following civil war so bloody, and made it hard for the occupation forces to restore order.
All the top military US military leaders left right after the collapse of the Hussein regime because they knew that it was going to be a disaster, and they didn't want their legacy to be associated with the resulting fuckup. Something like half the administrators who went over in the first wave to try and restore some kind of government did not have passports! They had never been outside the US. A sizable chunk were people who had worked for the Bush/Cheney election campaign and had no relevant experience. In short, completely clueless.
The winner on all of this has been Iran. Their regional power and influence in the Arab world has increased dramatically. A lot of the weapons that were looted during the lawless fall of Iraq ended up in Iran, by the way. Meanwhile, the US has been mauled by asymmetrical warfare in both Iran and Afghanistan. They win, we loose. The unexpected result that thwarted Iran has been the Arab Spring, specifically the near civil war in Syria. Otherwise they are well on their way to being the dominant Gulf power. They may still come out on top.
So here is the bonus question: Why has GW Bush been the invisible man during the current presidential campaign? The US withdrew combat troops from Iran and Bush's name never came up. That's like talking about the US Civil War without talking about Lincoln, or WWII without FDR or Churchill or Stalin. You would expect that he would be asked about the end of the conflict he started. We get nothing.
Now the press is all over the perceived weakness of the Republican contenders. It would be reasonable for someone in the press to ask the last elected Republican candidate, even if all they got was a "no comment". Again, nothing. When the Republicans scream about how Obama hasn't fixed the economy, no one, Democrat or Republican talks about how the Bush administration screwed it all up. Remember TARP and it's bailout were authorized when Bush was still in office. If you look at the press accounts, it's like our economic mess fell from the sky without human intervention.
I'm wondering what will happen during the Republican convention. Will Bush show up? Whoever the nominee is, do you think they want to be seen with Bush on stage? It would be like being endorsed by Charlie Manson. If Bush is a no show, will the press ignore the non-event? I assume that McCain will be there, and Palin will get some air time, so how could they not talk about Bush?
The disappearance of GW Bush is emblematic of the memory hole that now dominates US political discourse. We don't need the complexities of New Speak or the Ministry of Truth. Collective amnesia in the media is so much more effective.
Why is Snark Required?
The oil fields had to be protected - you'll no doubt recall what Hussein did when he was forced out of Kuwait? Oil revenues were to provide much of the funding for reconstruction. The allies should have made plans to secure the oil fields and cultural facilities. Iraq has an amazing cultural heritage, that if encouraged, could help provide a basis for a proud nation - not to mention tourism when they stop shooting one another.
Well you used to be able to quit pretty easily, but then some moron repealed DADT.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
It seems to me that there should have been a big pile of detached hands somewhere. Martial Law and Civil Law are still supposed to work together.
Some people here deride religion, but real religion is good for society as a whole. (This does not mean that it should be imposed on people by Government.) Religion teaches moral values in a way that Law can't, and in the absence of Law, those without moral values will act in ways detrimental to society. Sharia would have been better than no civil law.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
Good thing you said the "West". I can see how some might believe this, but it doesn't jive with the facts.
1) Iraq is "complicated". It is one part spin-off of Afghanistan, one part George W. Bush wanting to restore some honor for what happened to Daddy, with a dash of making vast profit for a few close friends/groups. This was the U.S. dragging others in.
2) Libya was a spin-off of the Arab Spring. The West, at least at face value, wanted the people to take power in Democracy. Libya was the safest place to help.
Of course, you might have some point. I just need to turn on the news to see the panic in the US that China might become a developed country and/or we might slide to number two. I can see a "We may be sliding, but we'll still be number 1 if everyone else slides faster" mentality behind the scenes.
I actually prefer the books to have been stolen for profit: that way, they may have made their way into private libraries, and may, in time be recovered.
On the other hand, books burnt by religious idiots are lost forever.
I was there in Jan 2005 and they had excellent hospitals (and doctors/nurses), an improving police force (that was learning about fingerprinting), and "basic services". I also toured some schools. Want to know what the school teachers told me? That under Saddam they made less than $10 a month, now they make $400 a month. Hmm, that sounds much better. I also had tea with a man who had his Doctorate in Physics but couldn't use a computer.
The big problems i saw centered around national identity and religions. For them, Family/Tribe was their Country and their town/village their allies. They didn't give a crap about the next town over. I visited a christian community who got along well with neighboring shia and sunni (and vice versa). The shia and sunni would kill each other on occasion for reasons i didn't understand. Most of the time it seemed related to something someone did years ago. The Iraqi people have long memories. Far better than Americans or Germans (the only other People i have lived with and know well).
As far as infrastructure went. The biggest failure i saw was in gasoline. Citizens would be lined up two days deep waiting in line for fuel. Fuel trucks were attacked/looted in-route to gas stations. Convoys protecting fuel trucks were bombed. You'd think a country like Iraq would have ZERO fuel problems. The second biggest failure was centralized electricity. I saw very little centralized electricity production. Instead of producing at a town/city level it was usually neighborhoods. There would be rat's nests of cables coming out of a generator and going to the nearby homes.
I'm partial to the Shia myself (who i spent the most time with). But before you say Iraq is worse off (because i doubt you've ever lived there), you should speak with an Iraqi about their views. I have. They have many interesting views on the subject.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
Even at little ol' Kansas University in the middle of the plains in big ol' US of A, the library had priceless antique texts and pictures. I got a feeling that's a little more the case here. Explain how anything you said applies to those.
Tell that to those who died in Lockerbie.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
During the first Iraq war, an irreplaceable collection of Fertile Crescent artifacts were destroyed when Bagdad's museums were bombed.
I knew someone who had worked studying them, and was literally in tears when he heard at what had happened.
Becuase they play ball.
Need to commend that I agree with Taco Cowboy on the point that the West targeted both Saddam Hussein & Muammar Gaddafi because the West is afraid of having Islamic country being modernized.
If you go back and read history you would understand that Islam was not always hell-bend to keep themselves backward.
There was a time of "golden age" for the Islamic civilization - and it's the Muslim who carried on the scientific and mathematics progress they obtained from Europe when Europe itself plunged into almost a total cultural annihilating brought on by the black death.
That is why the West is determined to keep the Islamic world - especially those inside the Middle East - under control of ass-backward ultra-conservative pray-or-die dictatorships.
I would also like to bring in one more example of why your argument does not hold water - Iran.
In 1979, the Shah or Iran was disposed by an Islamic Revolution.
Before the Shah was overthrown, Iran was one of the most modern Islamic country in the world. Women were permitted to do things that the present women in Saudi Arabia can only dream of.
Who was the one leading the Islamic revolution against the Shah of Iran?
Ayatollah Khomeini
Where was Ayatollah Khomeini residing in before he came back to Iran as the victor?
France
And why was France sponsoring Ayatollah Khomeini, a guy whose belief system (on religion, on modernization, on human rights, on democracy, on everything and anything) is totally opposite of what France stood for?
Perhaps because the West need someone like Ayatollah Khomeini to overthrow someone like the Shah of Iran, so to keep Iran backward?
Regarding your point of "play ball" ---
Has Iran under Ayatollah Khomeini or his successors, ever "play ball" with the West?
Not to my knowledge.
Does Iran have oil?
Plenty, more than plenty !
Why then the West never eliminate Ayatollah Khomeini and/or his successors?
Because as long as the current Iranian regime keep Iran (and Iranians) under unbelievably backward stage, they are doing exactly what the West wants them to do - to keep the Islamic countries (including Iran) backward.
Please don't diss other people's opinion just because you haven't have time to think over this matter, or you do not have the capacity to understand the intricacies of the many things that are involved.
I'm still confused - why don't we want Muslims to modernize? Africa and Asia I understand, because we get cheap sneakers and cell phones, but labor costs in the Middle East are completely detached from what we pay for oil.
The issue regarding the suppression on Middle Eastern Islamic countries (and the people) via despotic tyronnical regimes started long before the so-called "Rise of the East"
You gotta understand, long before World War I and World War II, the European countries had already had countless experiences on regional conflicts - from the conquer of Alexander the Great and his army to the various crusades to the Moors' conquer on Spain and Ottoman Empire's hold on many eastern European countries
From the above regional conflicts, the West got to know the people living just south east of Europe - the Middle Eastern/Persian tribes, and their very very aggressive (which often is on the verge of ruthlessness) Middle Eastern culture
That is why the one thing that keeps the West awakes at night after night, throughout the past millennium, wasn't India, wasn't Japan, wasn't even China, but the following:
"How to keep the Middle Eastern barbarians so busy that they do not have time to invade us"
After the disastrous World War II, the West had a common understanding - Make it so that the Middle East is mired in their own problems that they couldn't muster any effort to fight the West
As we can see, after the establishment of the United Nations, Middle East had plunged into one bloody conflict after another
And the regimes who hold power in the Middle Eastern countries ?
Either they are of the lunatic Islamic fringe - those ultra-conservative anti-modernists
Or they are of the Western puppets variety - such as the Anwar Sadat / Mubarak regime of Egypt, and the Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali regime of Tunisia
All these were designed so that no one would blame the West for what happens in Middle East.
After all, the West can publicly wash their hand clean and put all the blame squarely at those lunatic Muslims and their apparatus
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !