April 11, 2003
The Weekly Dish
Andrew Sullivan
On the day Kabul fell to Northern Alliance and American troops, the lefty journalist Nicholas von Hoffman predicted disaster and quagmire for the United States in Afghanistan. In von Hoffman's honor, I instituted the von Hoffman awards for terrible predictions in wartime. In Iraq, the very same people who predicted doom in Afghanistan manfully made the same arguments. Wrong again. Here's a roll-call of some of the worst offenders.
"Gruesome days for the German foreign minister: Every morning at 9, his staff briefs him on the situation in Iraq in the ministry's underground situation room. His worst fears are coming true: The U.S. military appears to be stuck in its tracks in the desert, and civilian casualties are multiplying. It has never been so painful to have been in the right, murmurs the foreign minister, with a worried look on his face." — der Spiegel, March 31.
"The United States is going to leave Iraq with its tail between its legs, defeated. It is a war we cannot win. We do not have the military means to take over Baghdad and for this reason I believe the defeat of the United States in this war is inevitable. Every time we confront Iraqi troops we may win some tactical battles, as we did for 10 years in Vietnam, but we will not be able to win this war, which in my opinion is already lost." — Scott Ritter, South African TV.
"In Baghdad the coalition forces confront a city apparently determined on resistance. They should remember Napoleon in Moscow, Hitler in Stalingrad, the Americans in Mogadishu and the Russians at Grozny. Hostile cities have ways of making life ghastly for aggressors. They are not like countryside. They seldom capitulate, least of all when their backs are to the wall. It took two years after the American withdrawal from Vietnam for Saigon to fall to the Vietcong. Kabul was ceded to the warlords only when the Taliban drove out of town. In the desert, armies fight armies. In cities, armies fight cities. The Iraqis were not stupid. They listened to Western strategists musing about how a desert battle would be a pushover. Things would get 'difficult' only if Saddam played the cad and drew the Americans into Baghdad. Why should he do otherwise?" — Simon Jenkins, the Times of London, in an article called — yes! — "Baghdad Will Be Near Impossible to Conquer," March 28.
"[Al-Jazeera has shown] the resistance and anger of the Iraqi population, dismissed by Western propaganda as a sullen bunch waiting to throw flowers at Clint Eastwood lookalikes ... The idea that Iraq's population would have welcomed American forces entering the country after a terrifying aerial bombardment was always utterly implausible . . . One can only wince at the way weak-minded policy hacks in the Pentagon and White House have spun out the 'ideas' of Lewis and Ajami into the scenario for a quick romp in a friendly Iraq ... pity the Iraqi civilians who must still suffer a great deal more before they are finally 'liberated.' " — Edward Said, London Review of Books, issue dated April 17.
"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." — Robert Wright, Slate, April 1.
"Is Wolfowitz really so ignorant of history as to believe the Iraqis would welcome us as 'their hoped-for liberators'?" — Eric Alterman, the Nation.
"Though Operation Iraqi Freedom has been underway for only two weeks, Rumsfeld's 'shock and awe' strategy was a flop. Pentagon strategists expected to have taken Baghdad by Mar. 27. Best-laid plans and all that: U.S. generals, worried that they don't have enough men on the front lines, are considering whether to lay siege to Baghdad, bomb it to ruins or take it one block at a time. Basra hasn't fallen. Suicide bombers are on the loose, we're offing civilians and the Iraqi army has gone guerrilla. And we hold a mere 4,000 Iraqi POWs. Only 45 Americans and Britons have died so far — compared to 112 total combat deaths in 1991— but allied casualties will soar if and when ground troops are ordered to take Baghdad ... In this respect, Iraqis are no different than we are. Millions of Americans consider Mr. Bush to be a hateful, extremist dimwit who seized power twice, once in an unconstitutional judicial coup d'etat and again by using the Sept. 11 attacks as a pretext to expand his personal power and gut the Bill of Rights. They call him names, like the Resident and Commander-in-Thief. But, even the most passionately anti-Bush Americans would eagerly join their W-loving compatriots to fight any army that invaded the United States in the name of some theoretical 'liberation.' I know I would." — Ted Rall, April 2.
"Have you ever seen such amazing arrogance wedded to such awesome incompetence?" — Molly Ivins, March 16.
No, Molly, I haven't. The liberal media have had a terrible, terrible war.
washingtontimes.com |
