DAY 21--The Fat Lady is singing!--People Celebrating Freedom in Iraq

AP (4AM Eastern time)--Foxnews--CNN--report open street celebrations in Baghdad, in the Kurdish Northern Iraq--and tank commanders overwhelmed in flowers!

One such Brit (in a tank) said he was a little disappointed there wasn't more fighting to do! But this feels good...

THE TIPPING POINT IS UPON THEM--the "minders" in Baghdad have even disappreared, along with police, and all other signs of Saddamite authority!

 

a sign to troops: "Thank You, Thank You mr. Bush!"
Slogan a crowd chants: "There is no God but God: his enemy is named Saddam!"

 

This war was planned and executed because Iraq posed a threat to the safety and security of the U.S. How, exactly, was that? A powerless enemy with no means to launch weapons against America, no evidence of supporting terrorism (unlike its neighbors, Syria and Iran), and no evidence of serious levels of NBC (levels that, again, would threaten the U.S.).

I noticed the other day that the military spokesman made it clear that we now controlled 500 of the 540 oil wells in southern Iraq. Thank goodness they were "liberated."

Note: Saddam is/was a bad man who oppressed his people. But this was not the original pretext for war. If it was, we were more than a decade late, because he's been killing Iraqis since right after we left him in power in '91. If this was about freedom from oppression, we've got a long list of despots to topple. Don't count on it. This was about Iraqi oil. Period.

 

The oil and freedom weren't cheap. They forgot to include the 149 U.S. and British casualties (and counting).

 

Not to mention the host of dead Iraqis who had their lives "liberated" from them.

If we were going in there with the stated purpose of freeing Iraq, fine. But that simply isn't the case. This was supposed to be about American security. But Iraq wasn't a threat to that. It couldn't openly be about oil, so freeing the Iraqi people became the pretext.

Who's next?

 

Rich, I share your concerns, but the jury's still out on chemical and biological weapons--there's still that stock of alleged sarin and lewisite that has been shipped to the U.S. for analysis, and that's not counting what might turn up when dissenters can be sure we won't pull the rug out from under them again.

I've always had concerns about this war (and still do, to be honest), but I have to say that I'm stunned at how well this was executed. Fewer than 1,000 civilian casualties (despite the fact that they were being shipped out past checkpoints on busses), compared to 3,000+ in Afghanistan and 150,000+ in the first Gulf War. And it's hard to feel depressed about the prospect of losing the government that brought on the Anfal Campaign.

What next? I really have no idea. Future self-defense struck me as a flaky justification for the war; humanitarian concern and a desire to end the economic sanctions would have made for a more convincing argument (Tony Blair took this approach; Bush did not). As it stands, the administration can attack nearly any nation on Earth on the same grounds.

But at the moment, I'm jubilant. Cautiously jubilant, if there's such a thing, but jubilant. It looks as if we're on the verge of peace and a new Iraqi government, impossibly, after less than a month. All this talk from Bush about taking longer than we thought had me thinking we would be looking at another Vietnam. I'm sure the military occupation isn't going to be a picnic, but where's this horrific Baghdad urban warfare I was sure our soldiers would have to face? The administration gambled and won. I'm sorry they gambled, but if they were determined to gamble, boy am I glad they won.


Cheers,

 

A gamble? Perhaps the Bush Administration had a hidden Ace card hidden under its sleve? It may not have been a calculated gamble. The military has been planning for this invasion since 9-11. On the other hand, the President may be just one of those lucky guys who was born with a horse shoe up his backside. Either way, Iraq has been liberated.

What's next?
I hope NOT North Korea.

 

I guess you missed the reports on the terrorist training camp captured by U.S. forces, complete with the fuselage of an airliner to practice highjacking? You must have also missed the chemical shells found by the 101st Airborne?

C'mon, Rich, I thought better of you than that.


Bruce

 

It's certainly easier to form an opinion when we can shove decisions into nice, discreet containers. But the reality is very different. There was no ONE reason why we went to war. In fact, I bet one would be hard pressed to find a consensus among the actual decisions makers on the top five reasons we went to war.

To put it in terms that are relevant to this site, I imagine what my answer would be if someone asked me why I went to college. My answers would include:

To learn
To get a better job
To party
To please my parents
To get chicks
To avoid having to work
To experience a different part of the country

And I could probably think of 10 more, at least. And this was a personal decision, made by me alone.

When considering a policy decision made by an administration, I find it hard to believe that there is ONE reason for ANY action.

 

Stanley Motss: Why Albania?
Conrad 'Connie' Brean: Why not?
Stanley Motss: What have they done to us?
Conrad 'Connie' Brean: What have they done FOR us? What do you know about them?
Stanley Motss: Nothing.
Conrad 'Connie' Brean: See? They keep to themselves. Shifty. Untrustable


From "Wag the Dog."



On to Syria!

 

I had mixed feelings about this adventure before it began, and I still have mixed feelings about it now that its military phase shows signs of winding up.

* The main thing that worried me both then and now is the precedent that the war sets. A nation that believes that it has the power to win, and that has the conviction that it is right, acts unilaterally by attacking another soverign nation. We can argue that we were in point of fact justified, and that our attack was morally and politically sound, but what makes that assertion any different than the self-justifications provided by every other invader in history? All attacks are entirely justified to those ordering them.

Obviously some justifications for war are better than others, but who decides? The attacker? Or is there some value in convincing the wider international community, just as multiple attestations add credibility to eye-witness reports?

* The nature of our victory surprised me. Our technological dominance was beyond overwhelming. I had no doubt that we would win, but not as easily as we did. We entered battles with Iraqi main-force units and the only question was whether we could destroy all of them without suffering any American casulties. We destroyed entire armored divisions and what did we lose, one tank? After a couple of weeks it was clear to any Iraqi soldier: To engage the Americans was suicide.

So, what message does that kind of victory send other nations, particularly those that fear that they might be our opponents down the line?

* If they believe that they might have a better chance against us than the Iraqis did, they will boost their defense spending as much as possible. A lot of countries will suddenly see the need to upgrade their militaries and to adopt new technologies immediately. This will probably be the message that China and Russia draw.

* If they accept the fact that their militaries will have no chance against us, no matter how much upgrading they do, they will look desparately for equalizers. That means the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.

We already see that happening clearly and obviously with North Korea. They are next on the "axis of evil" list, and their country is already on the ropes, economically. They can't go head to head with us in conventional arms. Hence their mad rush to acquire non-conventional arms and the means to deliver them to our shores.

We also see it, much more subtly, with Iran. That country also has an active nuclear weapons program, that they keep hidden behind their robes as they direct insincere bearded smiles at George Bush.

* Another thing that worries me is Muslim pride.

Muslims are torn about all this. On one hand, they hate Saddam Hussein, a truly world-class megalomaniac. (How many palaces with golden bathroom fixtures does one man need?)

But on the other hand, Iraq was one of the Arab world's leading nations. Baghdad was up there with Cairo as the leading city of the Arabic-speaking world, their "big apple". It was a place they were proud of.

When we crushed Iraqi power almost without noticing it, we said in effect that no Muslim nation shuld dare to stand against us. When we humiliated Iraq, we humiliated all of them, because they all know that they could do no better than Iraq.

That means that while they are happy to see Saddam removed from his pedestal, they would probably like just as badly to see the United States removed from its pedestal. They will simultaneously cheer our victory over their oppressor, and hate us for giving it to them.

They are extremely aware of things like manhood, honor and face, and I don't think that they will react very well to public emasculation. They will want a victory to call their own, and they will want to see us humbled. Expect to see redoubled support on the Muslim street for people like Osama bin Ladin.

 

I second all of Bill's concerns (he expresses my worries better than I do, I think), but on the last point I do see an opportunity for the U.S. to redeem itself through:

* a radical and unprecedented program of dialogue and apologetics. Except on foreign policy issues, Bush has been the most Islam-friendly president in U.S. history; he added "and mosques" to "churches and synagogues" even back in 2000 when he was campaigning (the first major party presidential candidate to ever do so on a regular basis), has been photographed reading the Qur'an (again, a first for a U.S. president), has openly criticized members of his own ideological wing for attacking Islam, and defended Islam as a "peaceful religion" within hours of the 9/11 attacks. He needs to get back into the swing of things here. He needs to listen to anti-U.S. arguments from the Muslim world and humbly respond to them in public, because they are being entertained by hundreds of millions of people, and that alone is reason to take them seriously. Bush needs to be taking interviews on Al-Jazeera, not just 20/20.

* a solution to the Israel-Palestine crisis. I don't think Bush can do this, but Colin Powell can. A solution that ends the violence and results in a Palestinian state could redeem us in the eyes of the Arab world. Palestine is a very big deal over there; it is the single most important bone of contention.

* exceptionally solid handling of the Iraqi government transition. We will inevitably benefit from any U.S.-friendly government in Iraq, but we should take special care not to look like colonialists.

* a continued show of force as necessary. I don't want to see more wars (I didn't really want to see this one), but no terrorist groups should ever get a breather from the U.S., even if we cease to become a primary target. That sort of tenacity and assertiveness will go a long way towards changing our international image. Salman Rushdie summed it up when he said that many hate us for our "obesity"; the impression is that we sit here on our couches with our concubines and eat grapes while the world goes to hell. Which ties into...

* a considerable increase in foreign aid. When our economy recovers (and I think it's well on its way), Bush should consider cutting a little off the inevitable tax cut and putting the money into foreign aid instead. If the Arab world's primary impression of the U.S. is "that country that feeds people" instead of than "that country that bombs people," terrorist demagogues will be out of work.

This is not a Cold War; this is a Warm War. Rather than crippling a country, our objective is to make people like us. Bush may not be the Reagan of this struggle, but maybe he can at least be the Eisenhower. I wish him well.


Cheers,

 

Just a sidelight in the spirit of Jan III Sobieski--

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7167

Hey Saddam, it's (Leszek) Miller time!

 

Bill, you've brought up some very real concerns; I'll see what I can find in terms of hard facts.


Cheers,

 

Quote of the day:

"Iraq will not be defeated. Iraq has now already achieved victory, apart from some technicalities."
-- Mohsen Khalil, Iraqi ambassador to the Arab League


Cheers,

 

It's true, Iraq has achieved victory.

 

It is heartwarming to see the joyous looks on the faces of the free Iraqies as they loot and destroy their capitol city. Think of the glorious times ahead, as waring sects attempt to commit genocide on each other as they grab for power.

Ah, but at least they'll sleep well knowing the oil is being protected by George Bush and his boss Dick Chaney.

 

Too bad there weren't a few right wing nuts to take the place of these righteous casualties. You never hear anything about shrub's daughters (Puke I and Puke II) going to Iraq with M 16 to fight their daddy's (and DICK Halliburton Cheney's) war.