Talk:Post-war Iraq

I think you need to educate yourself and stop watching the news for a while.

Started new thread on Post-war Iraq. AI 3/9/03 17:33 (EST)

Hmmmmmmmm .. a thought just appeared amongst the bits and bites of my mental ramblings ..

Since I began this thread back in March ... calling it "Post-war Iraq" ... were we actually "at war", i.e. had "we" "declared war" .. and what precisely were we "post"?

So, just exactly what is it that we "won"? the peace? (NOPE!!!) ... and what is our status now, since the "war casualty" count is higher now than when we were allegedly "at war"? (Yeah, I know .. no "body bags".)

Perhaps this article was a wee bit premature in terms of its title? Is the term "post-war Iraq" an accurate one? We have gone from assaulting Iraq (oops, forgot, liberating Iraq) -- and from being attackER to attackEE, it seems -- to pacifying Iraq to occupying Iraq .... now, we're engaged in democratizing Iraq (or is that "Chalabi-izing" Iraq ?) ... to ????

Be sure to see the NYT Op-Chart on Iraq http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/14/opinion/14OHAN.html?th

AI 11/15/03 06:37 (EST)

Oopppssss!!!!!!! Should have taken a closer look at the "chart" before ending this post ... Would somebody like to offer a new name for this "chart" ?? Smells like propaganda to me ... with terms like "counterinsurgency warfare" and "nation-building efforts" ... at least the word "efforts" is there. But, then, that's propaganda, too .. "oh, well, darling, at least we tried." - The term/phrase New Iraq has been employed by the media for some time. However, as this PBS web page shows, The New Iraq is very much engaged in the activities which could be considered Post-war Iraq, Occupied Iraq, etc. Take your pick!

However, I first came across the term on the U.S. Department of State's International Information Program's web page THE NEW IRAQ Progress & Accomplishments, which is kept current. It, too, shows everything pretty much the same as Post-war/occupied Iraq (sounds like "occupied Japan", doesn't it?).

So, I guess the terminology is arbitrary. I have no problems with redesignating all the Post-war Iraq files ... how do we go about it, M?

12/12/03 09:25 (EST) AI

I haven't seen the use of "new iraq" which I take to be a sign of successful avoidance of bad media. However, it seems clear to me that the recent introduction of "new iraq" would be a blatant PR attempt by BushCo to suggest that the former or old iraq of just a week ago, with all its resistance and failures, was somehow magically transformed into the kind of iraq which might help him get elected. In short, it's yet another BushCo con-job.

How about renaming 'Post-War Iraq' to 'Occupied Iraq' which would leave room for subsequent articles such as 'Post-Occupation Iraq' which is only marginally better in the long term than 'post-war Iraq', but may get us through the current generation or two; and by then a more better name may become apparent.


 * Should it be 'Occupied Iraq' or 'U.S. Occupied Iraq'?
 * I prefer the latter, as there may yet be a 'U.N. Occupied Iraq'.

Unfortunately, I just spent about umpteen minutes digging out all the old articles dating back to April that refer to Iraq then, as "the New Iraq" ... I guess I saved at the same time that you did and you won!

Anyhow .. can recreate if you'd like ..

Well, the "U.S. Occupied Iraq" is a problem, since, although "we" are the primaries in this endeavor, we are not alone .. don't forget the coalition of the willing .. if we use "U.S. Occupied Iraq", then we get into the territory of offending Brits, et al.

So .. hmmmm .... "Occupied Iraq" seems to keep things PC ... What do you think? --- Also, another problem with the "label" here is that we do have things happening in stages ... how to resolve?

There's the issue I'd overlooked of all the other Post-War Iraq/articles. I'm OK with "Occupied Iraq" however I believe that all the official documents declare the U.S. as sole authority. What would be the SourceWatch strategy in the event that the U.N., or Turkey, or Iran, ultimately takes over the occupation authority?

I've got to depart the desk for the day. This is a good matter for tests of persistence, and additional inputs over time. Let's give it a day or two before doing anything extensive. The amount of manual work involved without programming may be beyond inclination threshold.

A programmed find/replace operation would be useful here, eh. - I've renamed a few of the more obvious Post-war Iraq titles ... ones which make more sense anyhow:

Since the Iraqi casualties now to be considered are occurring during Operation Iraqi Freedom, I attached these casualties to Operation Iraqi Freedom: Iraqi casualties. If there continue to be casualties once OIF is "ended", then those could be identified separately.

We do not have a file specifically called "Reconstruction of Iraq", the reason for which escapes me, I renamed the Post-war Iraq contractors as Reconstruction of Iraq contractors. This will cover a broader base. It is certain that the contracting will go on for some time. Also, the creation of a Reconstruction of Iraq article could/would encompass all the greed, graft, and Halliburton stuff (scandal, investigations ... which is already on its way in Congress, so to speak) ...

Because the issue of U.S. military readiness is becoming significant, and will continue to do so, I attached the matter once again to OIF and renamed the file Operation Iraqi Freedom: U.S. military readiness. Today's news carried a story where Congress is wanting to expand the active duty forces, so that info will fit more appropriately or associate better with the new file name.


 * However, I have a feeling that the "expansion", although protested by Rumsfeld, will occur ... need more troops to broaden the war on terrorism/preemptive war ...

Also, a Iraq War Crimes Tribunal has been agreed upon. However, for lack of a better name than Post-war Iraq/crimes against humanity (which actually was the headline), I gave it the obvious title. Should we get a more official title for the tribunal, this file can be renamed.

The "New Iraq" titles are troublesome. The complication in great part comes from the CPA and USA (not to mention the IGC) ... There is no census in the immediate plan, so what do you label the call for a new Iraqi census? There is some sort of "new" currency in Iraq, but we do not yet have a name for it, do we? The issue of national elections is a mess .... not to mention the "handing over" of sovereignty, so ... what next?

An AFP news story (about a possible future role for NATO) on December 5, 2003, uses the term "U.S.-led occupation of Iraq". --- More title clarifications ... these are the easy ones (unlike the "New Iraq" for which, as yet, we have no official name).


 * Post-war Iraq/Iraqi debt renamed exactly what it is Restructuring and reducing Iraq's official debt.
 * Post-war Iraq/funding renamed Reconstruction of Iraq funding .... that's what it is supposed to be, right? I left the funding for OIF in the same file, but think it needs its own file ... although appropriations are all mixed together in Congressional documents.
 * Post-war Iraq/Vietnam War terms renamed Operation Iraqi Freedom: Vietnam War terms, which is appropriate since the comparison is between OIF and VW.