Month: March 2003

Even Saddam’s thugs find some of the “human shield” idiots a little hard to take.

“Earlier today, it was the Iraqis who seemed to have the initiative.” – Michael Gordon, today’s New York Times. Hey, you work with the material you’ve got.

American lefties protest. Doesn’t that just say it all? But some of these protests are just grist for a few hundred misguided teens. From the email in-tray:

As I walked among the crowd, I saw the protesters were very benign.-From observing about 150 of them, I saw that most were very young- about 17 or so. There were some 50-something people leading the rest, but they were a minority.-I saw signs and slogans, nearly all were ad hominem attacks on Bush.- Their appearance ranged from dregs-of-life scraps to Tommy Hilfiger.- Females outnumbered the males, but not by much.-By the time I got there, the energy was gone.- Whatever brought them together had vanished, and the entire atmosphere was like an 8th grade dance after the lights came on.- Lots of milling about.-The boys were trying to get the phone numbers of the girls, who were giggling and acting shy.
My righteous indignation melted.-Initially, I took them seriously and wanted to jab a finger in their collective chest and ask where they were when Clinton hit the Sudan, or bombed the former Yugoslavia, or when Saddam gassed, tortured, and raped his own people.-I wanted to challenge them.- Did they think that after 9/11 we could ignore states that could aid and abet terrorists?- Did any of their friends or relatives die on September 11th?- But these kids were jokes.- There was no serious thought here.-To call this event a protest is to misguide the public. This was a social gathering… an interactive parade of America-hating.-I wasn’t angry.-I was sad.-All the clichés floated up to me: what a shame these kids are being raised to hate their country.- How can they try to bite the hand that feeds them? What has gone wrong with these people to energize them to act this way?

Actually, in some ways, this mass lunacy has some potential. If this war continues as well as it has been, won’t the anti-war left not merely be defeated but beyond humiliated? And won’t that leave an impression on at least some of them? The younger ones, perhaps? You’ve got to keep hoping.

“As the sands shift and we execute the plan, one fact remains true: Marines are the windstorm that will liberate the Iraqi people from one of the most repressive regimes on the face of the earth and make their freedom a reality. Nothing will stop the U.S. Marines.” – Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, the chief Marine commander in the region.

A reader writes:

I too am hopeful about the progress of the war.- But I don’t know which network you are watching.- I am hearing reports of fierce fighting in the north as well as Basra in the south.- An Iraqi tug was stopped while attempting to mine a waterway.- And we are not yet confronting the forces around the capitol.- Yes it is going well.- So far so good.- That’s it.- If SH is dead, why aren’t Iraqi leaders running through the streets with white flags shouting don’t shoot?- Is someone suggesting that the Iraqi regime can continue operating with a SH look alike?- To what end?- I don’t think so.

All good points. But there’s also the possibility that some in the Saddam command structure are as in the dark as we are. The question we have yet to answer is: where did the tip of Saddam’s whereabouts come from? An inside job? Brilliant Special Forces work? Either option is highly encouraging. Again, I’m waiting to see new footage of Saddam.

Even the Guardian can smell it.

Lileks observes a moronic convergence:

11:50 NPR is running . . . the BBC. It’s interesting, listening to these guys – I’m unsure how it’s possible to sneer the entire time you’re speaking. I fear the announcer’s face will stay that way. Perhaps you can recognize an old Beeb hand by the permanently curled lip. I’ve tuned in twice in half an hour; both times they were talking about the FAILURE to get Saddam, and what this FAILURE means for the war which might be hindered by this initial FAILURE. And then the reporter – a female one, with a sneerier sneer – says the question now is when the attack will come, and whether the President will give his generals permission to act with a free hand.
Um . . . haven’t we already settled that question? I know it conflicts with the Beeb’s view of Bush as a vulture with a bloody globe clutched in one claw, the other holding the leashes of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but I heard hours ago that theater decisions had been left to the folks who do this for a living.
Unbelievable: NPR’s top of the hour theme is somber, downbeat, with a few disconsolate snare drums – music to lose by! Is it too much to ask of these people to play something that doesn’t sound like the music you’d use for the sinking of a f–king aircraft carrier? *$#%*(#$%$#5

Nah, James. They’ve only just begun. Imagine how terrified they are that Saddam might actually be dead.

Overnight, some new resistance is reported from some Saddamite troops. But still no new footage of Saddam. Meanwhile, what anyone with a brain would expect:

So far, however, there is no indication that the Iraqi population at large is resisting the allied forces. At Safwan, another town in the southeast, Iraqis waved in celebration as members of the 1st Marine Division hauled down giant portraits of Saddam Hussein. “We’re very happy… Saddam Hussein is a butcher,” said a man in the back of a pickup truck, identifying himself only as Abdullah. A woman fell at the feet of the Americans and embraced them, touching their knees, the Associated Press reported.

Are you watching this, M. Chirac?

I’ve been watching the television for a couple of hours now and I can’t stop watching. Why? Because something incredible is beginning to look possible. The fact that, as I write this, we are being told that Saddam was in the bunker when it was hit; we have seen no credible video of him since; large numbers of the Iraqi military may be surrendering en masse; the command and control system within the Iraqi military structure seems to have broken down; and there seems to be no meaningful military opposition at all so far – suggests something beyond believable. Have we destroyed this regime with one strike? We cannot now know. Maybe I’ll be proven horribly wrong and this is a defensive ploy. Maybe things will get much worse. But there’s something strange about this beginning. It’s not “shock and awe.” It’s one strike, and then tentative, quiet ground advance. And almost nothing from the other side. Did the threat of “shock and awe” lead to a senior defection, and surrender from the near-top? Is that why this is going eerily well? Who gave the White House the intelligence about Saddam’s whereabouts? And is he reliable? Perhaps that’s why the war is going so gingerly so far. Let’s just say: I’m amazed that this dream scenario is even conceivable. Was Saddam brutally betrayed? And did the White House know in advance? Right now, in the early morning hours, all this is beginning to seem at least within the bounds of possibility. Or have I lost it and this is just crazy optimism? See you when I wake up.

The fact that it’s still possible that Saddam and his odious, murderous sons are dead or severely wounded is immensely encouraging. If we don’t see a better image of Saddam than his impersonation of Dame Edna Everage last night, I’m going to assume the best. His old mistress has claimed that the tape was not the real man. There are other reports of one of Saddam’s sons having a brain hemorrhage. Who knows? But here’s hoping. It could save many lives.

A ‘TWO RESOLUTION’ GAFFE? Interesting detail from British government leaks about the negotiations that led to war against Iraq. Obviously, some of this is self-serving from London. More obviously, it will tick off Bush. Here’s the most telling detail:

Another senior British official said: “There was tremendous in-fighting in Washington. The drafts of the speech went back and forth. I think there were 28 versions before the final text was agreed. For us the key phrase was Bush’s commitment to seeking a new UN resolution to disarm Iraq. We were only sure we had it 24 hours before the speech. For some reason this was left out of the text on the teleprompter as Bush was reading it, and he had to improvise. He managed to ad-lib a sentence saying ‘we will work with the UN Security Council for the necessary resolutions’. But instead of saying ‘resolution’ he said ‘resolutions’ in the plural. That’s how we got stuck with the French idea of two resolutions.”

If that’s true, it’s an amazing screw-up. All of the last few months’ agony because of a teleprompter mistake? Somehow, I doubt it. But stranger things have happened.