Adam Yoshida nails it, regarding this much-hyped
New York Times story about missing explosives in Iraq.
Now, the story fails to answer one core question: when did these explosives go missing? It is simply never mentioned anywhere in the body of the story. American forces, one official is quoted as saying, went through the facility sometime towards the beginning of the war, saw no materials carrying the IAEA seal, and moved on. Buried deep within the story is the most likely explanation for what happened to the stockpile: it was standard Iraqi practice to, prior to bombing, move explosives out into the open and camouflage it. In all probability, it was long gone before any American soldiers ever got near the place.
Presumably, this story is designed to feed on the liberal argument that too few troops were sent to Iraq and that, as a result, US casualties have been higher than they otherwise needed to be. John Kerry tried to push this line during the debates.
This ignores two critical points:
First: in all probability most of what was at Al Qaqaa and these other places was looted before the arrival of US troops. Post-war intelligence confirms what many of us have long believed: that Saddam had, by March of 2003, abandoned all hope of defeating the United States in a conventional war and, therefore, had staked his hopes on the victory of a guerrilla force which, in collaboration with seditionists in America, would undermine the morale of the American people and force a US withdrawal.
Second: more US troops, unless the numbers were truly substantial, would probably have not made a difference, except for resulting in more US dead. In the sort of operation such as the one ongoing in Iraq, a point is reached where more troops simply mean more targets. Iraq was (and is) a nation literally floating on a sea of explosives. To secure all of those sites (and to do so without sustaining heavy losses) would have required, literally, more than a million men. This, of course, is the point of these attacks. Liberals are now for defending America, so long as we’re able to do it with more troops than are physically available. Anyone even a vague knowledge of history fully knows that these things happen: munitions linger long after wars end. To this very day, people still occasionally find bombs from the Second World War lying about.
You can see this being cited in antiwar arguments, can't you? "If it weren't for the invasion by the Coalition, these 350 tons of explosives would be safely in the hands of Saddam Hussein, where they posed no threat to anyone!"
UPDATE: Kerry is in New Hampshire, and is talking about this story.
"Bush talks tough and brags about making America safer... has once again failed to deliver."
Wow. Why was this president wasting his time in the Oval Office when he himself was supposed to be on the ground, guarding the Al Qaqaa facility?
"This president failed to guard those stockpiles. Today we learn these explosives are missing, unaccounted for, and possibly in the hands of terrorists."
As Kerry rips into Bush's "unbelievable blindness, stubbornness, and arrogance," I'm struck by how much disdain Kerry can pack into his usually-droning voice. He really thinks the president is dumber than dirt and malicious as well.
Then he turns around and says the troops are doing a magnificent job. |
