Well, we’re getting used to the phrase “Shock and Awe.” Herewith an invitation to readers to send in examples of how anti-war writers, poobahs, activists, bloggers, et al are trying to spin the liberation of Iraq into something that proves them to have been right all along. First up, a piece by Johnny Freedland (why do I know all these guys?) in the Guardian. The apparent success of “Shock and Awe” is, you see, a result of the “peace” protestors. If it hadn’t been for the patchouli paraders, no one in the Pentagon would have thought of minimizing civilian casualties! It’s a beaut:
The campaign began not with “shock and awe” but a subtler knife, aimed at the surgical decapitation of Saddam Hussein and his regime. One night’s bombing of Baghdad lasted no more than an hour. The terrifying spectaculars threatened by Rumsfeld and the boys, reminiscent of the fireworks of the first Gulf war, only materialised last night. There could be a stack of explanations for that initial deployment of the short, sharp blow… The US might have wanted to avoid a wave of worldwide revulsion. A series of tight, well-aimed strikes at the regime would have confounded the global fear of colossal Iraqi civilian casualties. It’s as if Washington had heard the peace movement’s objection to this war – that too many innocents would die – and was attempting to heed it. (Now the US can, at least, say it tried its best, but that it didn’t bring instant results.)
Notice the amazing assumption that Washington hawks would actually have wanted to slaughter thousands needlessly, if unrestrained by the Krazy Kantians in the streets. Other examples of “spin and squirms” gratefully received.
The Dish 