Month: March 2006

Milosevic’s final gambit?

We find out two important things about the Iraq invasion from the Gordon/Trainor de-briefing. They are the following:

"A United States Marines intelligence officer warned after the bloody battle at Nasiriya, the first major fight of the war, that the Fedayeen would continue to mount attacks after the fall of Baghdad since many of the enemy fighters were being bypassed in the race to the capital.

Instead of sending additional troops to impose order after the fall of Baghdad, Mr. Rumsfeld and General Franks canceled the deployment of the First Cavalry Division."

So from the beginning of the invasion, it became clear to many on the ground that the situation was not as expected, that it was more complex, that there was an organized resistance that needed to be tackled, that many more troops were needed. Rumsfeld responded as he usually does to criticism: he attacks it and ignores it. Amazingly, he held on to this position, even as the coalition stood by and watched the country of Iraq being systematically looted. As is his usual position, he now denies any responsibility for the war plan and blames others. This is also the defense secretary who in his five years in office has trashed the reputation for decency and honor won by generations of American soldiers. Rumsfeld should have been fired within days of the invasion. That he is still in place is a critical sign that the president still isn’t taking winning this war seriously. No one who was committed to victory would still be retaining a man who has presided over the shambles that has been the occupation – and who still doesn’t even understand what a shambles it has been. Fire him.

Thanks for all your emails pointing out those who actually stated that it was their view, before the Iraq war, that Saddam had no WMDs and had been effectively disarmed. The answer is: virtually no one. I thought we had a winner in Scott Ritter, and then I read this. Two sources check out. The first is the late conservative maverick, Jude Wanniski. In this report in June 2002, Wanniski proffered rebuttals of the case that Saddam was in any way a threat to the U.S. Money quote:

"Report: Saddam Hussein has been relentlessly seeking weapons of mass destruction.

My Finding: While Iraq had nuclear, biological and chemical weapon development programs during the Iran-Iraq war, which ended in 1988, there is no evidence he has been hiding any such efforts from international view since November 1991, when Iraq completed the destruction of all such programs in compliance with the UN Resolutions passed at the end of the Gulf War.

Report: The UN weapons inspectors were responsible for finding Saddam’s weapons programs.

My Finding: The UN inspectors found nothing before or since November 1991 that they were not shown by the Iraqi government.

Report: Iraq has weaponized anthrax.

My Finding: Iraq tried to weaponize anthrax during the war with Iran but gave up. No government has succeeded in weaponizing anthrax, unless one means delivering dried spores in envelopes."

Paul Krugman hasn’t cited Wanniski as one of his anti-war clairvoyant confreres. You can see why here. Krugman thought Wanniski was a "lunatic."

The other credible source is an important one, however. That source is Robin Cook, Tony Blair’s former foreign secretary, who resigned over the war. Read his personal statement in the House of Commons on March 17, 2003:

"Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term‚Äînamely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target. It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories. Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create? Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam’s ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors? …

The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people. On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain. They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own. Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies."

It stands up better than much of what I wrote at the time. But it is remarkable for one other thing: its rarety. The store is still open for latecomers, though, so if you find another example of a leading anti-war figure stating that Iraq had no more WMDs before the war, let me know.

The Islamist intimidation of free expression in Europe, and the craven response of Europe’s and America’s elites, is already yielding results. A festival in Valencia, which has always been known for its anti-clerical satire, is now pulling its punches. Money quote from a Spanish artist:

"We saw what happened in Denmark. Those artists may have had the freedom to draw Mohammed, but now they’re living as virtual prisoners. They have much less freedom than before. I felt responsible not just as an artist, but as a citizen of this city."

And so the silence spreads. The genius of using the threat of violence against writers and artists is that it can work quietly. We will never know what might have been said or written without the threat. That’s how they keep their doctrines intact. By silencing the questions. By killing the questioners.

I have no idea what’s behind the fact that Mark Steyn is no longer going to be published in Britain. But I sincerely hope it’s not political correctness. Steyn is no fan of mine, but he’s a wonderfully forthright and funny writer. Sure, he’s asinine at times, but he’s most often an enjoyable part of the conversation. Is there a back-story?

Check out these sidewalk drawings by Brit artist, Julian Beever. Cooler?

(Hat tip: the Corner.)

You should never under-estimate the religious right. I recently wondered out loud: "How long before religious right leaders urge a ban on gay marriage because it is inflaming Islamist terrorism?" I was a couple years too late. Chuck Colson wrote the following in October 2004:

"One vital goal of the war in Iraq, and the war against terrorism, is to bring democracy to the heart of the Islamic world. Our hope is to make freedom so attractive that other Muslim countries will follow suit. But when radical Islamists see American women abusing Muslim men, as they did in the Abu Ghraib prison, and when they see news coverage of same-sex couples being "married" in U.S. towns, we make our kind of freedom abhorrent ‚Äî the kind they see as a blot on Allah’s creation.

Preserving traditional marriage in order to protect children is a crucially important goal by itself. But it’s also about protecting the United States from those who would use our depravity to destroy us. We must not give up simply because the Senate voted down the FMA. It took William Wilberforce and his allies 20 years to shut down Britain’s slave trade; it will take years to win the battle for traditional marriage."

The equation of my commitment to my fiance with that of the torture in Abu Ghraib is unsurprising coming from a Christianist, but it is morally abhorrent nonetheless. I’m sure that Mr Colson has done great work with prisoners. But the notion that a commitment to another human being for life is "depravity" is itself depraved. (Hat tip: PFAW.)

There is no more important issue than that of religious fundamentalism’s current battle with liberal democracy. And no one has confronted this issue as forthrightly as Bruce Bawer. I re-read his last book, "Stealing Jesus," as essential background for my next book, "The Conservative Soul," and was struck again by its rigor and passion. Now, Bruce, who’s an old friend and ally, has written a clarion call for the West to understand the radical threat to our freedoms from politicized fundamentalist Islam. He writes from the belly of the beast, Norway, where he has lived for several years with his husband. I wish he’d toured the U.S., but he’s so enmeshed in the fight in Europe that he has stayed put. I know of very few as close up to what we face as Bruce is; and very few as brave and as eloquent on confronting it. You can buy the book here. It matters.

My old teacher gets the Q and A treatment in the NYTimes Mag today. Maybe I’m biased, but it was one of the funniest things I’ve read in a long while. I’m going to print out the following as a memento mori:

"People listen to me, but they don’t pay attention to what I say. I should punch them out, but I don’t."

Now, there’s a man. I’m going to read his book once I’ve finished writing mine. You can buy "Manliness" here.

An android!