Bombing UN headquarters in Baghdad. -- What was the rationale?

[Tricky]

One has to wonder about the purposes of the terrorists who blew up the hotel in Baghdad (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/08/19/sprj.irq.main/index.html) which was serving as UN headquarters.

Was it because US targets are too heavily guarded?
Was it becaue they just want to show that they are still out there?
Do they think the UN is their enemy?

Probably some of all of these and more, but it seems one of the most foolhardy things they could have done. This seems only more likely to increase support for the occupation among European nations and to make Iraqis, many of whom were working in the hotel, less likely to support the rebels. Of course, terrorists rarely think much about long-term objectives.

We shall see how this plays out. Meanwhile, we all express our sympathy and concern for the diplomats and employees at the Canal Hotel.

[Sundog]

I wondered that too. Perhaps an attempt to stir public opinion against the US in those countries that had people there?

So much for the "Let's just go kick ass and worry about picking up the pieces later" foreign policy. A great many of us predicted this quagmire that we are now in. Sadly it will have to get even worse before a single Republican ever admits it was a stupid idea.

Uh, Dubya, HELLO? Osama is still alive. Mullah Omar is still alive. Hussein is still alive. You're a failure.

[peptoabysmal]

Using words like "rationale" concerning terrorists is sort of an oxymoron. Their purpose? Create fear and terror, and hopefully drive out the coalition forces, because they know we don't have the stomach for long term occupation under daily terrorist attacks. Why? So they can establish another fundamentalist Islamic government.

Getting Osama won't stop terror any more than finding Saddam will stop terrorist attacks in Iraq. The only thing that will stop it eventually is for the entire world to show resolve and not back down and cower because of terrorist attacks. That's what the terrorists want and they don't give a damn who they hurt or kill, and they never will.

And welcome back, Trickster
:)

[Brown]

Well, one of the justifications for going into Iraq was to fight terrorism. The attack gives Bush & Company an opportunity to say "See??"

The USA has a history of pulling forces from hostile regions as the body count mounts. A guess is that the terrorists' immediate "goal" is to increase the body count, thereby expediting the pullout of US forces. If so, there seems to be no consideration of, shall we say, other possible outcomes.

It is a mystery why Muslims do not speak out more loudly against indiscriminate bombing of civilians. "Muslim" is becoming synonomous with "terrorist" in the minds of many.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Using words like "rationale" concerning terrorists is sort of an oxymoron. Their purpose? Create fear and terror, and hopefully drive out the coalition forces, because they know we don't have the stomach for long term occupation under daily terrorist attacks.
True. I said as much in my original post. But they surely must realize that they are also turning the stomachs of the Iraqi people. It will be much harder to control a populace that hates you, as the US has found.

Why? So they can establish another fundamentalist Islamic government.
That part is questionable. Iraq was the most secular of Arab countries under Saddam. Perhaps, though, this is the work of Shiites rather than Baathists. In any case, I agree they want power, but just like the US recruits for terrorists by becoming like the terrorists, the bombers recruit against their cause.


Getting Osama won't stop terror any more than finding Saddam will stop terrorist attacks in Iraq. The only thing that will stop it eventually is for the entire world to show resolve and not back down and cower because of terrorist attacks. That's what the terrorists want and they don't give a damn who they hurt or kill, and they never will.
Yes, it is important not to back down. But our retaliation must be surgical, or else we simply become terrorists ourselves. But there is more to combatting terrorism than just fighting against it. We must also try to understand the roots of terrorism and stop it there. Of course we need to swat the mosquitoes but we also need to drain the swamp.

And welcome back, Trickster
:)
Thanks. I missed you guys.

[dissonance]

If anyone sees a list of the names of the people killed or injured, could you post it for me here? My aunt is in Iraq right now, working on getting food programs implemented, and although she isn't working for the UN, she is working with them on what's going to happen with the oil-for-food program when it ends this fall.

Odds are she wasn't there, but I'm worried about her. Have been ever since she left.

[mummymonkey]

Obviously it's not possible to see inside the sewer that passes for the mind of the person who chose this target, but some of the reasoning may include:

A message to outside agencies/countries to keep their noses out
An attempt to prove that the US forces are not capable of providing security
An attempt to assassinate the UN envoy
A message to the people of Iraq that they had better not help the reconstruction effort or they will be killed
Keeping US forces tied down in Iraq (and therefore as potential targets) for a long period

I saw a US politician on Fox tonight and his total lack of understanding of the situation left me utterly dumfounded and frankly, a little scared. He suggested that it was former regime members (Baathists) who were angry because their lifestyle had been taken away from them. I mean, where do you start with that? I can't remember who it was now, Newt Gingrich perhaps?

[Mr Manifesto]

A few targets are raising question marks in my mind. I can understand sabotaging oil lines, but water?

Maybe the terrorists are trying to goad the US into clamping down on all Iraqis in order to cause resentment against the occupation. The only problem is, this tactic doesn't work- just look at what effect the sanctions in Iraq had. All that's going to happen is that the US will do its darnedest to make sure nothing that even sniffs of anti-US sentiment will be allowed to flourish, leading ultimately to another puppet-US regime. Like, er... the Ba'athists.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
A few targets are raising question marks in my mind. I can understand sabotaging oil lines, but water?

Maybe the terrorists are trying to goad the US into clamping down on all Iraqis in order to cause resentment against the occupation. The only problem is, this tactic doesn't work- just look at what effect the sanctions in Iraq had. All that's going to happen is that the US will do its darnedest to make sure nothing that even sniffs of anti-US sentiment will be allowed to flourish, leading ultimately to another puppet-US regime. Like, er... the Ba'athists.

I don't follow...
Saddam's Ba'athist regime was a puppet regime of the US?
:confused:

(kinda makes me wonder why all the UN sanctions, no fly zones, and ultimately invasion happened?)

[a_unique_person]

It was a soft target with westerners in it. Also, it means the UN is going to be extremely wary of going along with any diplomatic moves that US is now working on to ease the burden on itself and legitimise it's future administration.

According to this

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/19/1061261149794.html

Iraq is now a terrorist magnet. It is big, easy to get in and out of, plenty of weapons lying around, plenty of targets with the military spread out, and plenty of sympathisers.

The outsiders blowing up the infrastructure aim to stir up anger against the US by just making life miserable for the ordinary Iraqis.

The war was, according to the Rumsfeld thread, supposed to be self funding, using Iraqi oil to pay for everything. Blowing up the oil hurts the US in that vital organ, the hip pocket.

[a_unique_person]

Also of note.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/20/1061261163684.html

Dubya sticking up for the UN. Who'd a thunk it.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Tricky

True. I said as much in my original post. But they surely must realize that they are also turning the stomachs of the Iraqi people. It will be much harder to control a populace that hates you, as the US has found.


That part is questionable. Iraq was the most secular of Arab countries under Saddam. Perhaps, though, this is the work of Shiites rather than Baathists. In any case, I agree they want power, but just like the US recruits for terrorists by becoming like the terrorists, the bombers recruit against their cause.



Yes, it is important not to back down. But our retaliation must be surgical, or else we simply become terrorists ourselves. But there is more to combatting terrorism than just fighting against it. We must also try to understand the roots of terrorism and stop it there. Of course we need to swat the mosquitoes but we also need to drain the swamp.


Thanks. I missed you guys.

My guess is that the perpetrators were Saudi al-Queda sympathizers who came in through Syria.

I'm not suggesting retaliatory attacks, just strong resolve and advancing techniques towards stopping terrorist attacks.

I agree it would be best to stop it at the root, but does that mean a choice between stamping out Islamic fundamentalism or stamping out Israel?

I just remembered something -- wasn't the UN headquarters in New York a target for al-Queda long before 9/11 ?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Mike B.


I don't follow...
Saddam's Ba'athist regime was a puppet regime of the US?
:confused:

(kinda makes me wonder why all the UN sanctions, no fly zones, and ultimately invasion happened?)

Because the Ba'athist regime stopped being a puppet of the US.

Have a look at 1963 in this (http://www.scn.org/wwfor/iraqhist.html) link for starters. You can google for more info based on that.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by mummymonkey
Obviously it's not possible to see inside the sewer that passes for the mind of the person who chose this target, but some of the reasoning may include:

A message to outside agencies/countries to keep their noses out
An attempt to prove that the US forces are not capable of providing security
An attempt to assassinate the UN envoy
A message to the people of Iraq that they had better not help the reconstruction effort or they will be killed
Keeping US forces tied down in Iraq (and therefore as potential targets) for a long period

My thoughts exactly.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Because the Ba'athist regime stopped being a puppet of the US.

Have a look at 1963 in this (http://www.scn.org/wwfor/iraqhist.html) link for starters. You can google for more info based on that.

I don't know.
Here is some other information:

"In 1972 the Baathist regime signed a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with the Soviet Union. Article 1 stated that the treaty's objective was to develop broad cooperation between Iraq and the Soviet Union in economic, trade, scientific, technical, and other fields on the basis of "respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-interference in one another's internal affairs." Under the treaty, Iraq obtained extensive technical assistance and military equipment from the Soviet Union."

from here (http://www.1upinfo.com/country-guide-study/iraq/index.html)

The idea that Iraq was simply a puppet of the USA is hardly borne out by the facts and more likely is a result of your extreme anti-Amereicanism.

I mean despite the fact that it is demonstrably false. The notion that "America armed Iraq" is taken as a given by many of the far left on this board.

(You will find that Iraq's armament was overwhelming Soviet/Russian and French.)

[Crossbow]

My guess is that the attackers view the UN as just a bunch of USA lackeys, and they hate the USA more than anyone else. However, they knew that a truck bomb attack on US soldiers would not have much effect since they have tanks, guns, and body armor, but a truck bomb could work quite well against the UN office because it is lightly guarded (if at all) with easy access.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Mike B.


The idea that Iraq was simply a puppet of the USA is hardly borne out by the facts and more likely is a result of your extreme anti-Amereicanism.

I mean despite the fact that it is demonstrably false. The notion that "America armed Iraq" is taken as a given by many of the far left on this board.

(You will find that Iraq's armament was overwhelming Soviet/Russian and French.)

Where did I say that Iraq was armed by the US? Please don't use straw man arguments. The fact is, the CIA supported a Ba'athist coup, expecting the Ba'athists to support the Americans. For whatever reason they didn't. Consequently, they became America's enemy.

[Mr Manifesto]

Furthermore, although America might not have given Iraq it's small arms like machine guns, etc (that seems to have come from the Soviets), American companies supplied biological and chemical weapons (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/20/1061368351369.html) to the Iraqis.

[Dancing David]

Revenge, getting even with ther UN for sanctioning the invasion, stirring up the blod fever. Becasue they can, thumbing thier noses at the US.

rational and terrorist do not even live on the same street.

[The Mad Linguist]

I can see two possibilities.

If the bombers were very very stupid, they might not understand the distinction between Coalition and UN, and just went for the least-guarded target.

If they were very very clever, they understood that the UN mission's presence internationalised reconstruction and threatened to make life tolerable in Iraq. The bombers also understood that their only hope of garnering large-scale popular support is to make life in Iraq as miserable as possible and make it seem the Coalition's fault. By bombing the UN, they force the UN to up security, hampering its operations and distancing it from the Iraqi people (I've read reports that this is actually happening). They also make it harder for the UN to work on improving conditions in Iraq. So at a blow they simultaeously hinder efforts to improve conditions, and also reduce the exposure of the Iraqis to international bodies other than Coalition military. A stroke of genius, in terms of manipulating the Iraqi masses.

Diabolical mastermind or idiot who can't even spot his real enemy? I'll leave that for others to debate.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Furthermore, although America might not have given Iraq it's small arms like machine guns, etc (that seems to have come from the Soviets), American companies supplied biological and chemical weapons (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/20/1061368351369.html) to the Iraqis.

Just to set the record straight, Dow Chemical is an international corporation. It ceased being a US entity long ago, and has a lot of improper actions to answer for worldwide.

The US involvement with Saddam is a remnant from the cold war, when we didn't want Iraq to side with the Soviets. They did anyway. The US policy towards Iraq until Iraq invaded Kuwait was to follow the advice of Iraq's Arab neighbors, goes something like this:


"Everybody was wrong in their assessment of Saddam," said Joe Wilson, Glaspie's former deputy at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and the last U.S. official to meet with Hussein. "Everybody in the Arab world told us that the best way to deal with Saddam was to develop a set of economic and commercial relationships that would have the effect of moderating his behavior. History will demonstrate that this was a miscalculation."


Story (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1230-04.htm)

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist

If they were very very clever, they understood that the UN mission's presence internationalised reconstruction and threatened to make life tolerable in Iraq. The bombers also understood that their only hope of garnering large-scale popular support is to make life in Iraq as miserable as possible and make it seem the Coalition's fault. By bombing the UN, they force the UN to up security, hampering its operations and distancing it from the Iraqi people (I've read reports that this is actually happening). They also make it harder for the UN to work on improving conditions in Iraq. So at a blow they simultaeously hinder efforts to improve conditions, and also reduce the exposure of the Iraqis to international bodies other than Coalition military. A stroke of genius, in terms of manipulating the Iraqi masses.


Brigadier Jim Wallace (ret) (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2003/s928701.htm) seems to agree with this view. I don't think, though, that this is a good way to manipulate the Iraqi people, as I've noted above. All it will do is give the US occupation all the excuse it needs to quell anything that even sniffs of dissension- and now they won't even hear a peep from the UN!

[Mr Manifesto]

Ah-ha (http://www.peterbergen.com/clients/PeterBergen/pbergen.nsf/Web00002Show?)... Quite possibly it was Al-Qaeda. That would make sense if it was, since they wouldn't particularly care about the future of Iraq. This article seems to fit in with pepto's theory. So it could be a combo of Brown's and Pepto's.

Of course:

Now, in a development the irony of which is self-evident, in recent months al Qaeda has indeed established itself inside Iraq.

<snip>

It is only a matter of time before al Qaeda is able to pull off a significant terrorist attack that kills a large number of American soldiers. At that point perhaps the American public will ask: "Didn't we invade Iraq to prevent exactly what is happening now?"

[Mr Manifesto]

Another insight (http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=15494&CFID=9224629&CFTOKEN=55204172)

When I wrote about the fact that it was U.S. bombs that destroyed Iraq's civilian infrastructure during the first Persian Gulf War (which is a war crime, by the way), and that, according to even independent western doctors and scientists, the lack of this infrastructure was (and is) the primary cause of all these deaths, "realists" wrote me to say I must a blame-America-first kinda guy.

And this was after I suggested they read the 661 Sanctions Committee reports, which provided documentation that items such as refrigeration equipment to store medicine, needed medical textbooks, ambulances, and even requests for pencils were being withheld from Iraqi civilians by the Sanctions Committee under the control of U.S. policy-makers, going so far as to prosecute Americans who personally brought medicine to Iraq in violation of the sanctions.

So now, the U.N. headquarters have been murderously bombed in Baghdad and people are scratching their heads trying to figure out why.

We can continue to play the moral evasion game or we can face what New York Times reporter David Rieff pointed out in an article published last month about the legacy of the Iraq sanctions titled, "Were Sanctions Right?" -- a question that should have been asked and publicly debated 10 years ago.

"These (Saddam-blaming) observations do not answer the question of whether any policy, no matter how strategically sound, is worth the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children."

Eman Ahmed Khammas, co-director of the Occupation Watch Center in Iraq, said last week, "The U.N. is not very reputable here. Many people consider the U.N. responsible for the suffering of the last 13 years, the sanctions and the deaths of hundreds of thousands."

Plus, "before the invasion, the U.N. was paralyzed and did not stop the U.S. attack. Some people think of it as a department of the U.S. government. Security Council Resolution 1483 basically gave legal cover for the occupation and to legitimize the attack on Iraq," Khammas points out.

Former Oil-For-Food head honcho, Denis Halliday says of the U.N. attack, "We all think of the U.N. as this benign entity, but in Iraq it's held responsible for a great deal of suffering of the Iraqi people. The U.N. has been particularly corrupted by the Security Council. (Not to mention) resolutions on Israel go unenforced."