Comments on: Historical revisionism

By: Henry

Henry — Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:01:31 +0000

Jimmy As one of the commentators has already mentioned, I at no point said that the administration had explicitly promised a “cakewalk.” Instead, I was referring to a host of ancillary claims by administration officials keen to downplay the problems of post-war reconstruction. And the record bears me out on this. To quote a few administration sources. “I don’t think it has to be expensive, and I don’t think it has to be lengthy,” a senior administration official said of the postwar plan. “Americans do everything fairly quickly.” (Office of Management and Budget report to Congress)”The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid.” (quote from Rumsfeld) “There are even some who doubt that democracy could ever take root in the Arab world. Here’s my response to the critics: Look to the people of northern Iraq. Beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein and his regime for a decade, they’ve shown an impressive ability to manage longstanding differences and develop relatively free and prospering societies. Look to the Iraqi-Americans here today and throughout this country and see how quickly they have adapted to a democratic system.And, finally, I would say to these doubters, look to the Iraqi people’s long yearning for representative government and their long suffering under one of the most oppressive dictatorships the world has known. Perhaps more than any people, they have been inoculated against tyranny. (also from Rumsfeld)”It’s not logical to me,” he said, that it would take as many forces in the aftermath of a war “as it would to win the war”. “Any idea that it’s several hundred thousand for any sustained period is simply not the case.” That’s from 5 minutes googling; I’m sure that there’s plenty of other similar quotes where those came from.

By: Jimmy Doyle

Jimmy Doyle — Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:10:15 +0000

(Sorry; that should be “if it had been any easier it wouldn’t have counted as an invasion at all”.)

By: Jimmy Doyle

Jimmy Doyle — Mon, 21 Jul 2003 16:37:16 +0000

Dear Chris, You already know my response, but for the record: (1) Adelman was “assistant to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld from 1975 to 1977”; this does not make him one of “Bush’s people”, by which I meant (roughly) members of the administration. (2) I should have distinguished more clearly between the invasion proper and dealing with the situation since. Adelman is pretty clearly referring to the former when he says, “I believe demolishing Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk”. People routinely spoke of the invasion itself as the liberation of Iraq (which, in a straightforward sense, it was), Adelman’s reasons apply only to the invasion, he says “it was a cakewalk last time” even though there was no dealing with the post-invasion situation last time, etc. But what is the criticism of people who claimed that the invasion itself would be a cakewalk? After all, it was a cakewalk! If it had been any harder it wouldn’t have counted as an invasion at all! So even if Adelman did count as one of Bush’s people (which he does not, by any stretch of the imagination), what he said (a) is true and (b) has exactly no bearing on the original issue between me and Henry, namely whether Bush or any of his people ever said that the transition to democracy would be a cakewalk, or even ‘smooth’. I believe that no such person ever made such a prediction, and I believe that the reason is obvious, viz, that it would have been a very stupid prediction to make. So when Henry refers to “the smooth and easy transition to democracy that the administration seemed to be promising”, he’s just wrong. And the fact that someone who was an assistant to Rumsfeld in the seventies predicted, with perfect accuracy, that the invasion would be militarily easy doesn’t make him any less wrong. (Tristero’s point, on the other hand, concerned the invasion proper, and so is merely irrelevant.)

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Mon, 21 Jul 2003 15:48:37 +0000

Jimmy, I hate to correct a friend and colleague, but you might want to look at http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1996-2002Feb12 for an literal instance of the cakewalk claim from someone in the loop. C

By: Jimmy Doyle

Jimmy Doyle — Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:38:26 +0000

Henry, You presumably hang with a more sophisticated leftist crowd, but that should not blind you to the fact that People like Galloway, Pilger and Pinter are very widely regarded among antiwar types as valiant standard-bearers for truth. (They were stars of the antiwar demonstrations, for example.) Galloway had a (vile) column in the Guardian last week; I’ve yet to see the Guardian publish David Icke. Pilger’s regular gig is with the New Statesman, where he functions as a pawn in the anti-Blair campaign fought by jilted ex- cabinet member and now fervent Brown ally Geoffrey Robinson. Robinson is an extremely canny person and his campaign would make no sense if Pilger were generally regarded as a crank. This is on top of the fact that the NS is still the mainstream organ of the British Left; I’m afraid that your claim that pointing out where people like Pilger go wrong amounts to attacking a straw man is still a non-starter. I was amazed that you wrote “Tristero takes care of your other substantive points better than I could”. False modesty, surely?! I wouldn’t have thought you capable of descending to the level of Tristero’s absurd screed, which I considered not to merit a response, since it sufficiently discredits itself in its final paragraph: “No one I know who is anti-war is “pro” a long war. That is just a projection of your own desire to prolong the bang bang ‘cause it looks so cool (just like a movie!) when you’re far away from the action.” Uh, right, Tristero, I guess you’ve really got my number. And presumably Galloway & co are just pretending to relish the prospect of a ‘Vietnam-style quagmire’. As for his other points: “I heard a lot of talk about cakewalks and embracing their liberators and “cities on the hill” up until the very eve of war.” Show me a public utterance by Bush or any of his people in which it was claimed that the campaign would be a cakewalk. Then we’ll talk. I hate to repeat myself, so please pay attention: we are still within the official estimate of how long the invasion might take. “There are no reports of large numbers of children being buried alive. What a standard upon which to measure success for an invasion that has already killed untold Iraqis and some 200 plus coalition solders.” This is obtuse. Given that an important stated aim of the coalition was to put an end to the unimaginable barbarism of Saddam’s regime, the question of whether conditions are better than they were under that regime is patently a relevant one. Nor did I say or imply that the current situation counts as disastrous by any more stringent criteria. Iraq is obviously a horribly traumatised country. There are going to be serious problems for quite a while. I don’t really know how the ‘lurching disaster’ school manage to work up the energy required to pretend to be surprised. They should really conserve their powers of amazed expression for more deserving candidates, such as the YouGov/ Spectator poll which shows that a majority of Iraqis approve of the invasion, and do not yet want the coalition forces to leave. (http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2003-07-19&id=3315). On their assumptions, this really is inexplicable.

By: Laura

Laura — Fri, 18 Jul 2003 20:18:57 +0000

This is going back a ways—sorry for that—but Zippy wrote: “The fact that so much attention gets paid to a single casualty (two days for one shot soldier?) is evidence that Iraq is NOT in a state of permanent armed rebellion – the comparisons with Viet Nam make the people who remember Viet Nam laugh… albeit, with much black humor.” But Viet Nam wasn’t Viet Nam right away, was it? Their guerrilla strategies took years to develop and the U.S. wasn’t even in on all of the formative years of that. Plus, comparing press coverage now to press coverage then is a pretty weak argument. Coverage of Viet Nam, and perhaps the war itself, would have looked a little different if there had been several all-news channels back then.

By: Daragh McDowell

Daragh McDowell — Fri, 18 Jul 2003 19:43:05 +0000

Alright I’ll give you that perrenial frontrunner, is substantially different than #1 (much as Weapons of Mass Destruction is substantially different than WMD Program) but what I’m talking about is the actual effectiveness of Saddam’s dabblings in International Terrorism. Saudi Arabia has helped claim more US lives through terrorist actions than Saddam Hussein has during either Gulf War, or due to whatever dalliances in IT he has made (The ‘93 WTC bombing strikes me as the only significant evident Saddam has ACTUALLY FACTUALLY been linked to.)

By: MattS

MattS — Fri, 18 Jul 2003 19:14:08 +0000

You can debate the logical nitpicking of decision-making deceptiveness, but you haven’t addressed the basic assumption of the Bush worldview: LYING DOESN’T MATTER. In a big bad world full of meanies who want to kill you, what do you get by telling the truth or international legitimacy? If you accept that the neighborhood is dangerous, then quibbling with logic is the equivalent of inaction and letting those who suffer continue suffering. Attack the worldview, not the logic. It should be obvious by now that these guys aren’t interested in logic and have defined the political terrain so that it doesn’t really matter.

By: Jack Murray

Jack Murray — Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:58:24 +0000

“I’m surprised no-one here has taken a swipe at Jack Murray’s spectacularly uninformed notion that Iraq was the number one state-sponsor of terrorism throughout the 90’s” No one listens, do they? When did I say they were the #1 state sponsor of terrorism? This follows the whole point of this link’s title, Historical Revisionism. I want you to check the list of state sponsors of terror in the 1990s. A list comes out every year. I said: “It also must be said that Iraq was a perennial front-runner in the list of countries that sponser terrorism, prior to the current administration’s arrival onto the scene.” How many countries are there in this World? Okay now if Iraq is a consistent top 5 throughout the 1990s, of which 8 years were led by a Democratic Administration, would I be wrong with the assertion of “perrenial frontrunner?” How about consistent wildcard contender, and always a couple of games back from the division title? As for the UN and International courts, you can adhere to whatever laws you desire, but as an American I am bound by the constitution and I wouldn’t have it any other way. I know you’re quick to blame America for the World’s ills, and if something is flawed within the “United Nations” it has to be our fault, but that just doesn’t fly with me. I will spell-check my next post if you are distracted by misspelllinggs. :) Half a pheasant weakend!

By: Henry

Henry — Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:54:14 +0000

Jimmy Think you're engaging in some straw horse creation of your own here. George Galloway and John Pilger, "heroes of the left?" Nope. Useful whipping boys for the conservatives, more like it. Tristero takes care of your other substantive points better than I could. On the lurching disaster, check out this Times article courtesy of Patrick Nielsen Hayden, one of whose commenters aptly suggests, 'at this rate, the US motto in Iraq will soon be 'Not as brutal as the last guy.'

By: apostropher

apostropher — Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:53:17 +0000

Jack sarcastically says, "Muhammed Atta never met with an Iraqi official in east Europe no matter what Czeck Republic asserts." You're right, we should listen to what the Czech Republic asserts:

What we know was certainly not true, despite US insistence to the contrary, was that Mohammed Atta met an Iraqi agent several times in Prague before Atta's participation in the September 11 attacks . British intelligence sources who leaked the report also dismissed US claims of the meeting. Czech security chiefs have now concluded they made a mistake in their earlier reports of such a rendezvous. Indeed President Vaclav Havel said that there was no evidence that Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague.

By: Daragh McDowell

Daragh McDowell — Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:22:49 +0000

Oh and by the way, the word is spel ‘ludicrous.’ ‘Ludacris’ is a rapper.

By: Daragh McDowell

Daragh McDowell — Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:21:42 +0000

I’m surprised no-one here has taken a swipe at Jack Murray’s spectacularly uninformed notion that Iraq was the number one state-sponsor of terrorism throughout the 90’s. Even my Hawkish, NeoCon National Security Policy Lecturer at UCD informed us all that Hussein was, at best, a lacklustre semi-competent sponsor, and the big dog in that particular pound were the US’s closest ally in the region Saudi Arabia, followed by Syria and Iran. Spurious 9/11/Saddam links that the Bush administration has done its best to subliminally implant in the minds of the populace ignore completely that Osama bin Laden had a hatred for Saddam’s secular regime almost as burning as his one for the United States. He offered to use his Mujaheddin army to drive the Iraqi’s out of Kuwait in 1990, and even before the war released a tape calling for the Iraqi people to rise up and overthrow Saddam (a section shown on MSNBC during the live translation, and subsequently edited out of every rebroadcast.) Furthermore: The UN is a socialist anti-American institution? Really Jack grow up. The UN doesn’t work because evevery time the US decides it doesn’t like whats going on, it effectively picks up its ball and goes home, refusing to play. The astonishing hypocrisy of the Bush Administrations demands that it will only sign up to a new International Criminal Court if American’s are automatically granted immunity from prosecution is evidence of this. International Law is all well and good for puny loser countries, but not the mighty United States of America. Yes, I wouldn’t put a veto in China’s hands either, and Libya heading the HR committee is a little rich, but equally poor is the US demanding the rules be changed so it could get back on the committee after it was voted off. Are we not forgetting that the US has the highest per capita prison population on Earth, still practices the Death Penalty, and only last month declared laws that openly persecute Homosexual couples unconstitutional, to an accompanying uproar from the religious right? Socially, America is increasingly light years behind the rest of the world, and the blood lust and war mongering displayed by many of its people, the blind willingness to believe in even the most transparent lies to justify a war of imperial conquest, calls into question the assertion long held by many, (even me) that the United States is the best country to be currently leading the planet.

By: Tristero

Tristero — Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:14:19 +0000

” the commenters above are absolutely right to point out that the US administration never promised a “smooth and easy transition to democracy”, and your suggestion that they did is incomprehensible.” Wha? I heard a lot of talk about cakewalks and embracing their liberators and “cities on the hill” up until the very eve of war. ” And your description of “the lurching disaster that is post-war Iraq” betrays a lamentable lack of perspective. I haven’t seen any reports lately of large numbers of children being buried alive.” That’s right. There are no reports of large numbers of children being buried alive. What a standard upon which to measure success for an invasion that has already killed untold Iraqis and some 200 plus coalition solders. Strikes me that could have easily been stopped, if Saddam was still doing that recently, in a far less tragic fashion. “Remember also that we are still within the maximum duration of the war as estimated by the coalition (never mind the far lengthier estimates given, and in many cases secretly hoped for, by the anti-war left).” No one I know who is anti-war is “pro” a long war. That is just a projection of your own desire to prolong the bang bang ‘cause it looks so cool (just like a movie!) when you’re far away from the action.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:48:24 +0000

One significant bit of evidence that the Bush Administration assumed a smooth transition to “democracy” in Iraq is the following: The Pentagon acknowledges that they had planned on bringing home many more troops than they have thus far brought home, and that the continuing war is costing more than twice as much as they anticipated: 3.9 billion a month. Further evidence is available in the way Cheney and others talked, pre-war, about how the Iraqi people would “doubtless” respond to their American “liberators.” The parades and celebrations never occurred on anything like the scale they predicted.