Thoughts, comments, musings on life, politics, current events and the media.



Blogroll Me!


Comments by YACCS

 

And the $64,000 question?

As coalition forces drive through Baghdad, where the hell are the Iraqi forces? Apparently not at their headquarters. So? Any guesses? Not that I'm complaining, mind you, but this is starting to feel like the part of the horror movie in which the creature has been shot, and people are thinking, "It can't be this easy, can it?" And then we hear the ominous music, and the cliched comment, "I've got a bad feeling about this."

Did the Iraqis fold just like the cakewalk theorists hoped? Is Saddam Hussein dead, as people have suspected he might be, and did all resistance collapse as a result? I sure as heck hope so -- but I don't want to be too overconfident here. Is there some sort of ambush coming? Are they trying to lure more of our forces into Baghdad, where they'll counterattack, causing huge civilian casualties as well as military? I just don't get it.



Followup: the above questions still remain to be answered, of course, but I'm a lot more optimistic after reading Robert Fisk's latest, where he proudly predicts that the Iraqi resistance will be difficult to overcome:

In reality, an American siege and occupation of the city would take weeks, perhaps months, but capture of the airport would allow troop-carrying aircraft to land. Since the city is 27 miles wide, an all-out assault could be an operation of epic proportions.

But the United States and Britain may be calculating that capture of the airport would provide such a shock to the regime that it would collapse within hours. The fierce fighting for Basra, Nasiriyah, Najaf, Karbala and other cities suggests that Baghdad would not succumb so easily.

Given Fisk's track record, that ought to mean that the war will be over in days, if not hours.
posted by David Nieporent at 4/05/2003 03:02:00 AM |

 

Nothing better to do with their time

Do you think the people who got so upset at the Congressmen who renamed french food as freedom food in the House cafeteria will be equally upset about this frivolity? I guess I should be glad; every minute spent on this is one fewer minute spent creating more government programs.
posted by David Nieporent at 4/04/2003 10:54:00 PM |

 

He would love an American flag

One word: Wow. I'm not up on all my governmental honors, but is there some sort of medal that the U.S. can give him?

Mohammed has given up the life he knew to help a woman he met only briefly. He and his family came to this Marine base with nothing but the clothes they were wearing and a blanket. But Mohammed smiled broadly and happily talked about his role. He expressed no doubts about his decision.

"She would not have lived," he said simply. "It was very important."

Read that story of an Iraqi hero, and then go read a schmuck (it's a technical term) like Congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, who thinks we ought to stop the war now, and let Saddam Hussein remain in power. As long as we "disarm" him. Correction: as long as the United Nations "disarms" him. (Which they've proved oh-so-competent at doing.) And then ask yourself exactly what good "disarming" Saddam Hussein would do for Mohammed and his family. Or the millions of other Mohammeds in Iraq.

True, we likely wouldn't have started this conflict if Saddam Hussein didn't need to be disarmed. But once we decided that only military force would do, it stopped being about mere disarmament. How can Kucinich not understand that? Or does he just not care?
posted by David Nieporent at 4/04/2003 05:35:00 AM |

 

Irony, thy name is...

From a letter to the editor in Salon:

What you have to confront, in yourselves and in your nation, is the Culture of Fear.

Since 9/11, fear has enslaved your country. Your leaders are doing nothing to stop it. Neo-conservatives are using it to advance their own agendas and the rest justify their own cowardice by making sure that everyone else stays afraid.

Now you are embroiled in a war which, as Gary Kamiya pointed out in his excellent article three weeks ago, will have unknowable and possibly horrendous consequences.

It has actually been one of the most common anti-war arguments that the only reason the public supports Bush's liberation of Iraq is because we're so afraid after 9/11 that we'll agree with anyone who promises to make us safer, no matter what he or she proposes. That's plausible-sounding, certainly; fear often does make people more willing to accept extreme measures. But it works both ways; everyone is operating on the fear principle. The left is coming up with all sorts of world-is-going-to-end-if-we-do-anything scenarios, and if that's not fear, I don't know what is. What's worse is that it's paralysis-inducing fear. The administration is promising us solutions to our fear; the anti-war left is simply telling us we can't act because of fears of potential consequences. Is it really surprising that the public would choose the first of those two worldviews?
posted by David Nieporent at 4/04/2003 05:21:00 AM |

 

Challenging stereotypes

Just think what would have happened if Bush cared about the environment:

The government announced today that an Atlanta-based pipeline company would pay $34 million in fines under the Clean Water Act, the largest civil penalty ever paid by a company in the 32-year history of the Environmental Protection Agency.

By the way, this was on page A11 of the New York Times. Where do you think a story about lax punishment of a polluter by the Bush administration would have been placed?
posted by David Nieporent at 4/03/2003 05:51:00 AM |

 

The Great Debate

Stephen Pollard provides an excellent analysis of the debate in Washington over the future of a Saddamless Iraq. Over the last few months, many plans have been leaked to postpone democracy in Iraq, temporarily or indefinitely. Those tend to be State Department plans, and the mostly leftist critics of the US liberation of Iraq have seized on these plans to prove the ill intentions of President Bush. The Pentagon has other ideas; the crucial question now is who will win this debate. If the "moderate" State Department wins, we all lose.
posted by David Nieporent at 4/03/2003 04:32:00 AM |

 

Something's missing

Dan Drezner, picking up on a theme from Mickey Kaus, examines a possible negative side effect of the war on Iraq:

Consider: if you were a dictator, and the United States was preoccupied with prosecuting a war in a distant land, wouldn't you exploit the situation by cracking down on dissent? Even if such activities garner press attention, the half-life of the story is shorter, and an American response is less likely because of the inability to get the foreign policy principals to focus on anything other than the war.

Dan notes the problem happening in several countries: Cuba, Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan, Belarus, and Myanmar. The country he doesn't mention? The one that some in the anti-war movement were insisting would exploit the war: Israel. I can't count the number of times I read Chicken Littles of the left claiming that Ariel Sharon (whom they dislike far more than Saddam Hussein) would use the distraction of Iraq to expel all the Palestinians from the disputed territories, presumably into Jordan. I feel certain this would actually make the news, even with the war going on. Big news, really. But it's quite telling that they would worry about this extraordinarily remote possibility, while virtually ignoring actual occurences of the phenomenon.

(Virtually? Yes. As I mention below, someone noted the Cuban crackdown at least enough to blame George Bush for it.)
posted by David Nieporent at 4/01/2003 04:57:00 AM |

 

George Bush causes Mexican War: Details at 11

I know the New York Times hates George Bush, but do they really have to print letters attacking him for everything? Apparently so, because now he's to blame for Fidel Castro's' tyranny. Why is Castro's government arresting dissidents?

Essentially, because of the blundering tactics of the Bush administration, which has ordered the chief American diplomat in Havana not only to meet with virtually every dissident on the island but also to hold news conferences after the meetings in which he has been pointedly critical of the Cuban government.

The arrests are an overreaction by the Cuban government and exactly what the Bush administration hoped to provoke. One hopes the Cubans will see their mistake and begin releasing those arrested.

So the Cuban dictatorship suppressing dissent is just a "mistake"? What does that make Saddam Hussein's gassing of the Kurds, a faux pas? I'm sure George Bush is in some way responsible for that, also.
posted by David Nieporent at 4/01/2003 12:11:00 AM |

 

Birds of a feather

I was trying to figure out what on earth Peter "Baghdad Rose" Arnett was thinking when he said what he said to Iraqi TV. Now I know. He was angling for employment with the newspaper that employs John Pilger. And he's not the least bit apologetic for what he said.

That overnight my successful NBC reporting career was turned to ashes. And why?

Because I stated the obvious to Iraqi television; that the US war timetable has fallen by the wayside.

I have made those comments to television stations around the world and now I'm making them again in the Daily Mirror.

I'm not angry. I'm not crying. But I'm also awed by this media phenomenon.

The right-wing media and politicians are looking for any opportunity to be critical of the reporters who are here, whatever their nationality. I made the misjudgment which gave them the opportunity to do so.

Yes, Peter. It's the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. It wasn't because you explained to the Iraqi government that all they had to do was cause civilian casualties to get the U.S. to abandon the war.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/31/2003 11:04:00 PM |

 

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

In 1991, the first George Bush called Saddam Hussein "another Hitler." I remember the anti-war people sneering at this, just as they have this year whenever analogies are drawn between the failure of the "international community" to stand up to Hitler and their failure to stand up to Hussein. But apparently in addition to being anti-Semitic mustache-wearing fascists who use poison gas, Saddam and Adolf have another thing in common. (via Rachel Lucas.)
posted by David Nieporent at 3/31/2003 03:43:00 AM |