The BBC often invites readers to comment on world events, and it is invariably fascinating. BBC NEWS | Have Your Say | Falluja offensive: Your reaction (bbc.co.uk, 11/22/04) is amazing. This was printed while I was away on vacation, along with the release of the video showing a U.S. soldier killing an injured, unarmed man laying on the ground. (I failed to post anything about that, or about the report interviewing soldiers who admitted to killing large numbers of civilians accidentally, which, if representative, indicates a wholesale slaughter of civilians by the occupation.)

There is a lot of reframing of reality going on, to measure the events in Falluja by completely different yardsticks than could ever be used at home, within one's own communities. This is a discussion between foreign people who want another country to change to their liking, and largely aren't concerned with distant consequences.

One writer remarks that, if compared to other battles in which large militaries battle militias in urban combat, this has been a great victory, because fewer soldiers died than in other situations.

Another remarks that Afghanistan is free and safe (!!!), showing that foreign invasions can be successful. (I can only assume this person is one of the free and safe Afghan warlords.)

Another says that it's okay that there are so many people dying, because that is normal for wars.

And that it's okay to level Falluja, because this is a war. And it "had to be done." Because we said so.

With the right keyword, a supposedly morality-obsessed nation can check its morals at the door.

I remember when Salam Pax wrote that "shock and awe" was a horrible concept if it was about to happen to your home town, to a city you love. Any normal, healthy person couldn't wish that upon themselves, or their loved ones, or anyone else. And yet, here are cheerleaders -- with a sprinkling of people pointing out the immorality of the situation, and praying for victims -- doing just that.

It's just amazing.

As someone living in a country that gained its independence through what would now be coined terrorism, the U.S. of A., it's amazing to see how the idea of such tactics is completely self-serving.

Iraq 2004: What went wrong (bbc.co.uk, 01/01/05): "In 2004, Iraq went badly wrong - except for supporters of the insurgency, in which case it went grimly well."

This is one of those articles which ONLY looks at 2004, and assumes that the war was going to occur regardless... It almost approaches comedy by the end, with comments about the country still being 'on track.' But on track to where?

Professor Cole (and one of his readers) have some good points to make about how the war in Iraq is hampering the U.S. response to the Tsunami crisis in Asia. Informed Comment, 12/28/04:

Bush's underlining of the $2.5 billion he says the United States gave in emergency humanitarian aid last year annoyed the hell out of me.... Bush said 'billion' as though it were an astronomical sum. But he spends a billion dollars a week in Iraq, without batting an eye. That's right. Two weeks of his post-war war in Iraq costs as much as everything the US spent on emergency humanitarian assistance in 2003 for all the countries in the world.

Ah, priorities.

Head Scarves Now a Protective Accessory in Iraq - Fearing for Their Safety, Muslim and Christian Women Alike Cover Up Before They Go Out (washingtonpost.com. 12/30/04). The complete collapse of order has allowed women of all religions in Iraq to be targeted for abuse. When a woman whose religion doesn't require a head covering is (or feels) unsafe without one, things have gone seriously downhill.

This is no surprise to anyone who has been following the situation in Iraq, with its bombings, kidnappings, and the horrific rape of young girls which has inspired "honor killings" by male relatives of victims. This is more of the same, on a more personal level. Now, half of the population may be pressured into giving up any public persona... *shudder*

POSIWID

Watching the despair of the people of Iraq, I've often wondered what Bush believed he was celebrating when he had that terrible, comic photo-opportunity aboard an aircraft carrier that bore a huge, "Mission Accomplished" banner. What mission had he believed was accomplished?

A potentially useful tool for contemplating this is a principle used in analyzing complex systems. It is called POSIWID - the purpose of a system is what it does (users.globalnet.co.uk/~rxv). In examples of economic analysis, it is used to look at why things are done a certain way. If a bank set up a very complex accounting system that hides transactions from regulators while spewing unnecessary data, the purpose of the system is, in fact, to hide transactions.

This tool can easily be misapplied or misinterpreted, but I believe it can be useful for looking at a variety of systems. If a college requires exorbinant fees to consider student applications which have the effect of blocking low-income students, the purpose of the application may, in fact, be to block low-income students. If the political primary system in the U.S. is set up in a way that only millionaires can participate, the purpose of the primary system may be to limit our options to millionaires. Some of these effects may appear to be unintentional, but if there is no larger impact and no alternative achievable purpose provided, the effect I point out is the MAIN effect, and becomes a sort of default.

So if we look at the invasion of Iraq, we hear a list of stated purposes:

-protection from WMDs
-increased stability
-safer lives for Iraqis
-democracy

and then we have a list of actual effects:

-weapons spread across unlawful groups
-decreased stability
-less safe lives for Iraqis (higher death rate than under Saddam)
-anarchy (in a bad way)
-U.S. military expansionism (including military bases)
-suppression of dissent in U.S. and Iraq
-redirection of U.S. tax funds to military contractors/political donors and away from social services
-passage of undemocratic laws in U.S. consolidating government power
-persecution of peace and democracy advocates in U.S.

POSIWID can be used in this situation as a tool, but does not provide a final analysis.

The invasion of Iraq has been very lucrative and advantageous for a variety of interests. The negative consequences of the invasion have not fallen on the same people who have benefited most. This is by design. I find this approach useful for analyzing the situation we find ourselves in with this war.