I find this fascinating, wish it happened more often that the curtain could be drawn back and see what the individuals behind the scenes really thought.
Here's a good quote:
"My favourite moments were when, after an hour-long litany of complaints (and never a word of thanks for liberation), one of them noted that Samarra is known throughout Iraq… for having ‘the purest heart’ of all cities. Right.”
I always thought it was the height of ignorance and arrogance that the US could falsely go to war over bad intel, kill or displace hundreds of thousands, and then complain they weren't thanked for doing it.
Also, Muslims are famous for their hospitality and charity, and Iraqis are no exception.
The fact that he blithely dismisses something that Iraqis are genuinely proud of shows how arrogant and ignorant he is. Did he even bother to ask more?
Quite a lot of arrogance. Hates complaints and negativity - from both Iraqis and from his own superiors. Thinks he's just a fall guy for when things go sour. Sees Iraqis as inferiors and is not horrified when women and children are killed - but only is concerned about how it looks on him. All these reprisals where Iraqis are tied up and humiliated in front of their families, building resentment. Suspending elections when the "wrong party" seems to be winning. He spends a lot of time thinking about his home and his new pool back in the US. It goes on and on.
My favourite quote:
>Bremer risks going on TV to be questioned by students. It is not a resounding success. “They complained about everything under the sun… Will you really give us back our sovereignty? When will you stop detaining Iraqis? My favourites were statements that nothing has changed after liberation. I had a hard time containing myself through all this… And there were the usual Marxist questions about multinationals stealing Iraq’s wealth etc etc. Very tiresome. And entirely ungrateful. Not one word of thanks to the coalition, even for their liberation.”
Submission statement:
‘I am now officially the government of Iraq,’ Bremer wrote to his wife in private messages from 2003 unearthed by The Sunday Times. In frank detail, they show the dangers of waging war without the right plan. Paul Bremer, the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq from 2003 to 2004, kept a private correspondence with his wife detailing the challenges and frustrations of his role. These emails, recently discovered at Yale University, reveal Bremer’s candid thoughts on the Iraqi people, his American and British colleagues, and the deteriorating situation in Iraq. They provide a stark contrast to Bremer’s public account of his time in Iraq, highlighting the complexities and consequences of the U.S.-led invasion.
Well, for starters we definitely learned our lesson regarding falsely going to war, regime change & hubris of hegemony…oh sorry I thought this was opposites day for a second there. Carry on.
Trolley problem: "Either I kill a few 100s of thousands to stop Uday and Saddam, or let them kill a few 10s of thousands". One is a political "Win", the other is a "Loss".
“We”, as in “we, the west”, didn’t kill hundreds of thousands in Iraq. Iraqis did that after the invasion.
The west is responsible for creating the power vacuum that made these atrocities possible, but it wasn’t western soldiers who did the majority of the killing.
And I can assure you that the Iraqi Kurds were really glad that the guy who attacked them with chemical weapons was finally killed.
In case you’ve forgotten:
> To date, the Halabja massacre remains the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated region in human history,[10] killing between 3,200 and 5,000 people and injuring 7,000 to 10,000 more.
He is an unbelievable piece of shit. He gave an interview where he repeatedly claimed to “not remember“ his orders disbanding the army and eliminating all Ba’ath Party members from any and all positions
This was a great treasure trove for those of us who followed Iraqi history and the war closely.
Bremer was always an arrogant prick, The Guardian had reported Mr. Bremer’s initial vow in Iraq July 1, 2003, “We dominate the scene and we will continue to impose our will on this country.” Many Arab observers found the diction insufferably arrogant at the time. His arrogance oozes through in these emails repeatedly. He acts so enlightened and selfless to the press but then in these emails he talks about how he doesn’t want Iraqis to have democracy as they may elect people who oppose US interests.
It’s not mentioned in the article but Bremer had announced that Iraqi elections and handoff to Iraqis would be delayed indefinitely and Bremer and his handpicked council would rule. Grand Ayatollah Sistani insisted that drafters of a new Iraqi constitution be elected. Bremer wanted to appoint them. Bremer is reported to have said “can't we get a fatwa from some other mulla?” Sistani is the most popular ayatollah and marjah in the Shia world, the highest rank of ayatollah and a virtual pope within Iraq, and Bremer didn’t know this? It’s the same way a bishop doesn’t outrank a Pope. Sistani issued a religious ruling June 28, 2003 calling for nonviolent protests and immediately cities erupted in major street rallies until Bremer quickly backed down and said elections would be held soon. Then he tried to defy Sistani and plan for caucus-style elections (handpicked by the US) rather than general elections. He then pushed back elections until 2005, in hopes the results wouldn’t embarrass Bush, but the outcome was the same and a lot of bloodshed needlessly happened as a result of the delay.
There’s also a screenshot of an email where he complains about how Al Jazeera is making him look bad because they talked about Abu Ghraib so much and how he asked the state department to pressure Qatar to censor the channel.
The stuff about the elections is in the article from his perspective.
>Bremer’s job is to install democracy. But when an Iran-backed party appears likely to win a provincial election, he simply cancels it. “We assessed that SCIRI would win the elections, so I called them off,” he writes to Frances. (The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq was a Shia political party.) The US Marines don’t like this idea, believing it will stoke tension. “I had to land rather hard on them to explain that while I did not expect them to take my advice on driving a tank, neither would I expect them to know about delicate political matters,” he writes.
>The new Governing Council is a 25-strong group of Iraqi advisers hand-picked by Bremer, a body that can act only with his approval.
>A complication in the handover of power arrives in the form of Ali al-Sistani, a grand ayatollah and the country’s immensely influential senior Shia cleric, who insists that a constitution be drafted by an elected body and that Iraq be governed by an elected government. As about 60 per cent of Iraqis are Shia, his word carries enormous weight. In Washington there is anxiety that elections might deliver the “wrong” result.
>Bremer senses US power slipping. “We are already halfway out of the back door and everybody knows it. If we give in again to [Grand Ayatollah] Sistani [and his request for an elected provisional government], we will lose whatever authority we have over the political process here… We are not ready for empire!”
This is honestly a really insightful article. The neo-colonial contempt he held for the Iraqi people while ruling them is palpable from the quotations. Good work on the historian for finding them.
I deployed there in 09 and it was definitely a shit show. Talked to Leon Panetta briefly in 2011 and the impression I got is that many character from that period were winging it the whole time.
Pretty wild they were completely arrogant and incompetent 20 years ago and somehow we’ve done it again with people an order of magnitude more incompetent and arrogant but hey eggs and immigrants amirite?
> Washington begins to turn on Bremer over one of the occupation’s most fateful decisions, disbanding the Iraqi army, which has left hundreds of thousands of young men armed and unemployed. Ordered by Bremer the previous May with Rumsfeld’s enthusiastic support, it is now being treated as Bremer’s failure. “Rumsfeld… has suddenly started agitating in seven directions at once, having been completely silent on all matters Iraqi for four months… Condi has also fallen into this mood and is for the first time thrashing about… The message, as with Rumsfeld, is that our policies have been wrong and I no longer enjoy their confidence… My view is that we have by and large done pretty well considering what we were up against… If the folks in Washington really think that they can do the job better, then they should come out here and do it… Condi was quite testy again today. There has been a near complete collapse in the system back there, and in confidence in me and our staff. So we are getting even more backseat driving than ever before.”
It's a long read, but I thought this section was the most telling of the whole thing. It just felt surreal to read the def-facto journaling managing a military occupation from office work navel gazing. I suppose that's what inspired the neo-colonial comment.
Vancocillin | a month ago
I find this fascinating, wish it happened more often that the curtain could be drawn back and see what the individuals behind the scenes really thought.
Here's a good quote:
"My favourite moments were when, after an hour-long litany of complaints (and never a word of thanks for liberation), one of them noted that Samarra is known throughout Iraq… for having ‘the purest heart’ of all cities. Right.”
I always thought it was the height of ignorance and arrogance that the US could falsely go to war over bad intel, kill or displace hundreds of thousands, and then complain they weren't thanked for doing it.
EdOfTheMountain | a month ago
GOP seems to need a lot of thanks.
Crusoebear | a month ago
They are needy little divas.
sulaymanf | a month ago
Also, Muslims are famous for their hospitality and charity, and Iraqis are no exception.
The fact that he blithely dismisses something that Iraqis are genuinely proud of shows how arrogant and ignorant he is. Did he even bother to ask more?
kermityfrog2 | a month ago
Quite a lot of arrogance. Hates complaints and negativity - from both Iraqis and from his own superiors. Thinks he's just a fall guy for when things go sour. Sees Iraqis as inferiors and is not horrified when women and children are killed - but only is concerned about how it looks on him. All these reprisals where Iraqis are tied up and humiliated in front of their families, building resentment. Suspending elections when the "wrong party" seems to be winning. He spends a lot of time thinking about his home and his new pool back in the US. It goes on and on.
My favourite quote:
>Bremer risks going on TV to be questioned by students. It is not a resounding success. “They complained about everything under the sun… Will you really give us back our sovereignty? When will you stop detaining Iraqis? My favourites were statements that nothing has changed after liberation. I had a hard time containing myself through all this… And there were the usual Marxist questions about multinationals stealing Iraq’s wealth etc etc. Very tiresome. And entirely ungrateful. Not one word of thanks to the coalition, even for their liberation.”
Creative-Resident23 | a month ago
But were they wearing suits?
Zimbah | a month ago
“Bad intel”.
[OP] UnscheduledCalendar | a month ago
Submission statement: ‘I am now officially the government of Iraq,’ Bremer wrote to his wife in private messages from 2003 unearthed by The Sunday Times. In frank detail, they show the dangers of waging war without the right plan. Paul Bremer, the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq from 2003 to 2004, kept a private correspondence with his wife detailing the challenges and frustrations of his role. These emails, recently discovered at Yale University, reveal Bremer’s candid thoughts on the Iraqi people, his American and British colleagues, and the deteriorating situation in Iraq. They provide a stark contrast to Bremer’s public account of his time in Iraq, highlighting the complexities and consequences of the U.S.-led invasion.
cccxxxzzzddd | a month ago
Should be required reading for every American.
We lost 3,000 on 9-11. And 4,500 in Iraq. What did we accomplish
kirbyderwood | a month ago
> What did we accomplish
Halliburton stock went up 500% from 2002-2008.
AblePerfectionist | a month ago
Dick Cheney's baby got HUGE.
Shark_in_a_fountain | a month ago
I don't know about you, but I think the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis are more shocking than the 4500 American invaders that died.
Crusoebear | a month ago
Well, for starters we definitely learned our lesson regarding falsely going to war, regime change & hubris of hegemony…oh sorry I thought this was opposites day for a second there. Carry on.
Heiminator | a month ago
Saddam Hussein and especially his son Uday were killed. Uday imho is in the running for worst human being to have ever walked the earth.
erublind | a month ago
Trolley problem: "Either I kill a few 100s of thousands to stop Uday and Saddam, or let them kill a few 10s of thousands". One is a political "Win", the other is a "Loss".
Heiminator | a month ago
“We”, as in “we, the west”, didn’t kill hundreds of thousands in Iraq. Iraqis did that after the invasion.
The west is responsible for creating the power vacuum that made these atrocities possible, but it wasn’t western soldiers who did the majority of the killing.
And I can assure you that the Iraqi Kurds were really glad that the guy who attacked them with chemical weapons was finally killed.
In case you’ve forgotten:
> To date, the Halabja massacre remains the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated region in human history,[10] killing between 3,200 and 5,000 people and injuring 7,000 to 10,000 more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_massacre
troubleondemand | a month ago
Classic example of how the US will never learn from their mistakes.
erublind | a month ago
That's kind of the core of the trolley problem, the us shifted the trolley onto a specific track.
Touchstone033 | a month ago
These two things have nothing to do with each other.
GushStasis | a month ago
The former was used as justification for the latter by republcians
SoupyPoopy618 | a month ago
Seriously! What an asinine comment you replied to. I hope it's a bot. A human being that stupid just makes me sad.
JournalistEast4224 | a month ago
What circle of hell will he reside
Sufficient-Dog-2337 | a month ago
Disbanding the Iraqi army wasn’t just dumb in hindsight, it was dumb in the moment too.
Carribean-Diver | a month ago
Yup. The next day, the first IED exploded.
nighthawk_md | a month ago
Circle 8, malebolge, containing corrupt politicians, amongst others?
digableplanet | a month ago
Cool website. Thanks.
ChakaKhansBabyDaddy | a month ago
He is an unbelievable piece of shit. He gave an interview where he repeatedly claimed to “not remember“ his orders disbanding the army and eliminating all Ba’ath Party members from any and all positions
Necessary-Reading605 | a month ago
Shia??? Sunni??? Who cares??
AblePerfectionist | a month ago
All of our targets start with 'S' boys, Yee-haaW! We capitalize the W to emphasize the Walker.
sulaymanf | a month ago
This was a great treasure trove for those of us who followed Iraqi history and the war closely.
Bremer was always an arrogant prick, The Guardian had reported Mr. Bremer’s initial vow in Iraq July 1, 2003, “We dominate the scene and we will continue to impose our will on this country.” Many Arab observers found the diction insufferably arrogant at the time. His arrogance oozes through in these emails repeatedly. He acts so enlightened and selfless to the press but then in these emails he talks about how he doesn’t want Iraqis to have democracy as they may elect people who oppose US interests.
It’s not mentioned in the article but Bremer had announced that Iraqi elections and handoff to Iraqis would be delayed indefinitely and Bremer and his handpicked council would rule. Grand Ayatollah Sistani insisted that drafters of a new Iraqi constitution be elected. Bremer wanted to appoint them. Bremer is reported to have said “can't we get a fatwa from some other mulla?” Sistani is the most popular ayatollah and marjah in the Shia world, the highest rank of ayatollah and a virtual pope within Iraq, and Bremer didn’t know this? It’s the same way a bishop doesn’t outrank a Pope. Sistani issued a religious ruling June 28, 2003 calling for nonviolent protests and immediately cities erupted in major street rallies until Bremer quickly backed down and said elections would be held soon. Then he tried to defy Sistani and plan for caucus-style elections (handpicked by the US) rather than general elections. He then pushed back elections until 2005, in hopes the results wouldn’t embarrass Bush, but the outcome was the same and a lot of bloodshed needlessly happened as a result of the delay.
There’s also a screenshot of an email where he complains about how Al Jazeera is making him look bad because they talked about Abu Ghraib so much and how he asked the state department to pressure Qatar to censor the channel.
kermityfrog2 | a month ago
The stuff about the elections is in the article from his perspective.
>Bremer’s job is to install democracy. But when an Iran-backed party appears likely to win a provincial election, he simply cancels it. “We assessed that SCIRI would win the elections, so I called them off,” he writes to Frances. (The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq was a Shia political party.) The US Marines don’t like this idea, believing it will stoke tension. “I had to land rather hard on them to explain that while I did not expect them to take my advice on driving a tank, neither would I expect them to know about delicate political matters,” he writes.
>The new Governing Council is a 25-strong group of Iraqi advisers hand-picked by Bremer, a body that can act only with his approval.
>A complication in the handover of power arrives in the form of Ali al-Sistani, a grand ayatollah and the country’s immensely influential senior Shia cleric, who insists that a constitution be drafted by an elected body and that Iraq be governed by an elected government. As about 60 per cent of Iraqis are Shia, his word carries enormous weight. In Washington there is anxiety that elections might deliver the “wrong” result.
>Bremer senses US power slipping. “We are already halfway out of the back door and everybody knows it. If we give in again to [Grand Ayatollah] Sistani [and his request for an elected provisional government], we will lose whatever authority we have over the political process here… We are not ready for empire!”
Bonobo-Man | a month ago
This is honestly a really insightful article. The neo-colonial contempt he held for the Iraqi people while ruling them is palpable from the quotations. Good work on the historian for finding them.
ChirrBirry | a month ago
I deployed there in 09 and it was definitely a shit show. Talked to Leon Panetta briefly in 2011 and the impression I got is that many character from that period were winging it the whole time.
lewisfairchild | a month ago
Cambridge guy exposing a Yalie.
ExternalSpecific4042 | a month ago
Iraqi oil was not metered for years after American takeover.
Pallet of one billion dollars cash, “disappeared”.
Heckuva job.
LiteratureMindless71 | a month ago
I wish people were real :/
djedi25 | a month ago
Pretty wild they were completely arrogant and incompetent 20 years ago and somehow we’ve done it again with people an order of magnitude more incompetent and arrogant but hey eggs and immigrants amirite?
gauchnomics | a month ago
> Apr 15, 2004
> Washington begins to turn on Bremer over one of the occupation’s most fateful decisions, disbanding the Iraqi army, which has left hundreds of thousands of young men armed and unemployed. Ordered by Bremer the previous May with Rumsfeld’s enthusiastic support, it is now being treated as Bremer’s failure. “Rumsfeld… has suddenly started agitating in seven directions at once, having been completely silent on all matters Iraqi for four months… Condi has also fallen into this mood and is for the first time thrashing about… The message, as with Rumsfeld, is that our policies have been wrong and I no longer enjoy their confidence… My view is that we have by and large done pretty well considering what we were up against… If the folks in Washington really think that they can do the job better, then they should come out here and do it… Condi was quite testy again today. There has been a near complete collapse in the system back there, and in confidence in me and our staff. So we are getting even more backseat driving than ever before.”
It's a long read, but I thought this section was the most telling of the whole thing. It just felt surreal to read the def-facto journaling managing a military occupation from office work navel gazing. I suppose that's what inspired the neo-colonial comment.