Month: April 2003

I’m simply stunned by the news of Mike Kelly’s death. He was a beautiful writer, a brave polemicist, a prickly, funny man, a superb editor, and a friend. He died in action, which is perhaps as he might have wanted it. I can’t think of anything more to say right now in the moments after reading this awful news, except that please pray for his young family, his wonderful wife, and his wider family and friends. He was a great journalist and a good, good man. May he rest in peace.

This is what some in the army – and their supporters in armchairs all over cable news – most feared:

Air Force jets, Army AH-64 Apache helicopters and multiple-rocket launchers “destroyed our objective,” said Lt. Bevan Stansbury, executive officer of Bravo Company in the 2nd Brigade’s 3rd Battalion, 15th Regiment. “So we have no fight right now.” “They pretty much destroyed every vehicle in the brigade,” Stansbury said. With a trace of disgust, he added, “Now we’re just rolling in and will probably be an occupation force.”

Now I can see the army is pissed off that they haven’t really been needed yet for the climactic battle against the Republican Guard (if it hasn’t already happened). But remind me why the rest of us should be concerned? From my particular, reclining armchair, it looks as if this war will be won primarily by the amazing work of the special forces, and the airforce (with critical backup, of course, on the ground). But that would prove Rummy right, wouldn’t it?

TO CHEER YOU UP: This tale of a humane Iraqi is worth a throat-catch or two.

A useful reminder.

SPIN AND SQUIRM: Mickey – “Don’t Rush Me, Rush Rummy” – Kaus is backing his friend (and mine) Bob Wright for the following assertion (made only two days ago!) that

as the war drags on, any stifled sympathy for the American invasion will tend to evaporate. As more civilians die and more Iraqis see their “resistance” hailed across the Arab world as a watershed in the struggle against Western imperialism, the traditionally despised Saddam could gain appreciable support among his people. So, the Pentagon’s failure to send enough troops to take Baghdad fairly quickly could complicate the postwar occupation, to say nothing of the war itself.

It’s a valiant effort, even as Bob’s piece seems to be moving inexorably toward a von Hoffman award (not yet, but it’s not looking good for the earthling U.N.-lover). Here’s a pitch-perfect rear-guard “spin and squirm” “what-did-the-Romans-ever-do-for-us?” pirouette from Mickey:

It’s true that the military picture has seemingly improved since Wright’s piece was posted; his how-can-we-trust-the-hawks-who-muffed-the-war-to-remake-the-Middle-East argument has less force than it did even 24 hours ago. But the hawks were surprised by initial resistance in the South (even if it was mainly resistance obtained at gunpoint), and Rumsfeld still did send too few troops, it seems — even if the war overall is going well so far. So there’s still room for doubting the hawks grander rosy scenarios.

The phrase “it seems — even if the war overall is going well so far” is the qualification only a master blogger could pull off. So’s the final sentence. If there’s room for doubting the hawks’ “grander” rosy scenarios, is there no room for doubting the less grand ones, like, er, that Rummy hasn’t obviously screwed up so far? In fact, to the naked eye, he’s kicking butt. Surely the best neoliberal criterion should still be Kenneth Pollack’s (partly because it wasn’t made with any of the current debate in mind):

Probably the most likely scenario would be about one third of Iraq’s armed forces fighting hard, limited use of tactical WMD, and some extensive combat in a few cities. In this most likely case, the campaign would probably last four to eight weeks and result in roughly 500 to 1,000 American combat deaths.

To argue that the war has taken much longer than necessary seems to me at this point to be pushing credulity. At the current rate of progress, it looks as if we’re going to come in at the lower end of Pollack’s estimate. But I guess the anti-neo-cons have got to grasp at something. If things continue at this pace, it’s going to be a cluster of von Hoffman awards.

The incorrect quote from the New York Times story about Lt. General William Wallace is a story that won’t quit. As a quote, it wasn’t a minor deal. Here’s a Google search of its impact – an entire array of media sources perpetuating a quote that was inaccurate. In fact, a whole wave of “quagmire” spin was promoted by the quote. And yet – and here’s the new twist – a few days earlier, a different New York Times story, by Jim Dwyer, got the quote right. Here it is. The same day, the Washington Post got it wrong. So the New York Times, having started out in better shape than its rival, then swerved into inaccuracy. Then – on the day of its correction – it went and did it again, in this piece in the Circuits Section:

The debate over the use of computer simulations large and small was sharpened when Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, the commander of the Army V Corps based in Kuwait, remarked that the guerrilla-style resistance of Iraqi militia groups made for an enemy that was ‘different from the one we war-gamed against.‘ The current situation in Iraq, some critics say, may highlight the problem of depending too much on virtual realities for training. They argue that military leaders can become too enmeshed in a gaming scenario to allow for what is actually happening. (My emphasis.)

Yes, I guess you could say the quote marks make the quote technically ok. But after all this fuss, wouldn’t it be appropriate to make sure that the infamous “a bit” bit wasn’t snipped out the quote? It seems to me the Times got it right, then wrong, then corrected it, then got it wrong again. Is anyone actually editing this paper?

A BRITISH SETBACK: On the dusty streets of Umm Khayyal, a fierce battle ends in utter British defeat. But a minor p.r. victory. I hope to read more stories like this one.

THE OTHER WAR : And CNN’s in a bit of a “quagmire“.

SADDAM AND ISLAM: As things get worse, Saddam gets more and more religion. Odd that, isn’t it? We’ve been told endlessly that his rule is secular, yet it’s based on religious arguments. Hmmm. Here’s Lileks on the theme:

Anyway – I thought of this today while reading another one of Saddam’s dispatches from beyond the grave. It contained the usual BS (how do you know a Ba’athist is lying? His mustache is moving. And we curse it!) and it contained what we now have come to expect from this noted secular despot: explicit religiosity. (Reuters link via the indispensable Command Post.)
“Damn them, and by God, there will be thousands of soldiers fighting for what is right, virtue and faith in defense of the land of prophets and holy places, of belief and devotion,” it quoted Saddam as writing in a letter to his niece on April 1 . “This war is not like previous wars. It is truly a jihad (holy war) for the sake of God and the nation. It is a war between Muslims and infidels.”
We all know he doesn’t mean it; this is a fellow who probably installed drainage channels in the mosque floors in case he needed to use them as torture depots. But it’s a reminder that this campaign is not disconnected from 9/11 – it’s an integral part of the war. Whoever chose to speak for Saddam did not appeal to pan-Arab solidarity, to socialist duty, to the struggle against globalization, to the need to contain the American hegemony, or the primacy of the rule of international law, the campaign to release “Freaks and Geeks” on DVD, or whatever cause is floating out in the great maelstrom of international contention. Prophets, holy places, belief, devotion, jihad, God, war between Muslims and nonbelievers. Those are the terms.”

Yep. and they’re non-negotiable.

The New York Times has commissioned another piece designed to attack the administration’s journalistic supporters. The first, by Jim Rutenberg, was an attempt to gloat over conservatives’ alleged belief that this war would be a “cakewalk.” (I wonder if the Times would ever ever run a piece about those journalists who recently claimed that a “quagmire” was imminent.) The second by David Carr is designed to portray non-lefty journalists as stooges of the administration. It’ll probably appear tomorrow. Carr’s scoop is that yesterday, a bunch of us hacks had lunch with Karl Rove at a public restaurant in downtown DC. Organized by National Review’s Kate O’Beirne, these off-the-record lunches are regular events, and, although no material can be used, they are a good way to sense the mood in the administration, ask tough questions, talk candidly and so on. Most political magazines organize such lunches – at The New Republic, we used to have them all the time. In fact, such off-the-record lunches with senior politicians are a Washington fixture. But watch the Raines spin. Just a heads-up.

I apologize for sometimes linking to pieces in foreign languages, but sometimes they’re the only source for fascinating stories. Here’s one from “Proche-Orient,” a French publication covering the Middle East. You may recall an anti-Semitic incident at the poignantly named Albert Camus school last year, where a young Jewish girl was beaten in an anti-Semitic attack. A judge has now fined the parents of the girl – yes, the parents – for talking to the media about the affair. The French authorities deal with anti-Semitic violence the way the Catholic Church has historically dealt with child rape. Why? Because they know they’re guilty.

Austria’s far-right neo-fascist, Jorg Haider, offers asylum to Iraqi foreign minister, Naji Sabr. Jorg Haider and the anti-war far left – both hoping for allied defeat, and the destruction of Israel. Revealing, isn’t it?

Another fascinating correction from the Times, this time yesterday:

A front-page news analysis article on Sunday about the political perils faced by President Bush over the war with Iraq misattributed a comment about Saddam Hussein’s government being “a house of cards.” While some American officials had used the phrase to predict a shorter conflict and a quick collapse of the Iraqi leadership, Vice President Dick Cheney was not among them.

Amazing. Another front page Big Lie from Raines and company. Notice also the mealy-mouthed correction. Which other “American officials” are they talking about? Somehow, I suspect, if they exist at all, they’re nowhere near the senior levels – which was the point of Johnny Apple’s self-parodic piece. More and more, readers are beginning to realize that Raines’ NYT doesn’t just spin against the Bush administration on an hourly basis. It also merrily lies to keep the propaganda war going. (Thanks to Powerline.)

A jaw-dropping correction in the New York Times today:

A front-page article on Tuesday about criticism voiced by American military officers in Iraq over war plans omitted two words from an earlier comment by Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, commander of V Corps. General Wallace had said (with the omission indicated by uppercasing), “The enemy we’re fighting is A BIT different from the one we war-gamed against.”

One simple question: why are the reporters who used that critical quote to exaggerate the difficulties of the allies still working for the NYT? The reporters in question are Bernard Weinraub, formerly of the Hollywood beat, and Thom Shanker. (Thanks to Jonah.)