No, Rumsfeld won't resign; he's just passing the buck back to the generals. But "house of cards" predictions about this war have been erased from the hawks' press clips file. And let's face it -- "war of liberation" rhetoric is harder to pull off when you don't have pix of cheering crowds tossing garlands as our tanks roll by. Want images? Reuter's slide shows have been around awhile; its new service (free for now, expected to go subscription-only soonish) is Raw Video -- [mpg?] clips without any commentary (Raw Video button loads viewer)
As the estimable and orotund John Smith of LincolnPlawg points out, the underestimation of a military enemy can be founded on racist biases. Surely that is not the case when officials blame Russian contractors or meddlesome neighbor nations for the consequences of their own shortsightedness, e.g. failing to bring along enough troops to secure your lines of supply.
One must keep the US/UK reverses in perspective though: casualties have been low, Iraqi attacks sporadic and largely ineffective, and the war is only eleven days old. Expect talk of moral calculus to begin in earnest next week -- is it better to take more time or to hurry things along, even if more "unnecessary" deaths occur? And what are the political costs of these choices?
Yet the "operational pause" has made history, Rummy knows it and it bugs him. I reckon a six-or-seven day coalition walkover would have been much more dangerous to global security in the long run. There are plenty of chances for screw ups (before the war's end or afterward). And if bad weather were to ground US air support for a few days, I wouldn't be surprised if Satan's boyfriend launched a counteroffensive if only to keep his diehard forces' morale up.
So perhaps there is a silver lining to the past week's events: the next time brilliant "defense policy" advisors come up with an amazing scheme to rearrange the world order at little or no cost, politicians, generals might join citizens in plucking up the nerve to ask: "Is your war really necessary?"
|
As the estimable and orotund John Smith of LincolnPlawg points out, the underestimation of a military enemy can be founded on racist biases. Surely that is not the case when officials blame Russian contractors or meddlesome neighbor nations for the consequences of their own shortsightedness, e.g. failing to bring along enough troops to secure your lines of supply.
One must keep the US/UK reverses in perspective though: casualties have been low, Iraqi attacks sporadic and largely ineffective, and the war is only eleven days old. Expect talk of moral calculus to begin in earnest next week -- is it better to take more time or to hurry things along, even if more "unnecessary" deaths occur? And what are the political costs of these choices?
Yet the "operational pause" has made history, Rummy knows it and it bugs him. I reckon a six-or-seven day coalition walkover would have been much more dangerous to global security in the long run. There are plenty of chances for screw ups (before the war's end or afterward). And if bad weather were to ground US air support for a few days, I wouldn't be surprised if Satan's boyfriend launched a counteroffensive if only to keep his diehard forces' morale up.
So perhaps there is a silver lining to the past week's events: the next time brilliant "defense policy" advisors come up with an amazing scheme to rearrange the world order at little or no cost, politicians, generals might join citizens in plucking up the nerve to ask: "Is your war really necessary?"
- bruno 3-30-2003 10:05 pm