A military commission has found Osama bin Laden's former driver guilty of one count of providing material support for terrorism, but a spoilsport New York Times editorial complains about "an odd prosecution. Drivers of even the most heinous people are generally not charged with war crimes."
Picky, picky. If bin Laden had been without wheels in 2001, how could he have gone to planning meetings for 9/11? By bicycle?
Terrorist enablers are a serious problem. After we track down and prosecute bin Laden's barber, dentist, dry cleaner and personal trainer, he will be in no shape to plan new attacks or record threatening videos. If he does, who will take an unkempt, flabby, badly dressed terrorist seriously?
We could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble in Iraq by going after Saddam Hussein's groomers instead of invading the whole damn country. How long could he have stayed in power looking the way he did with all those lice in his hair after coming out of that hidey-hole?
Showing posts with label Saddam Hussein. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Saddam Hussein. Show all posts
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
Mission Creep in the Middle East
John McCain's hyperbole about keeping troops in Iraq for a hundred years is alarmingly echoed in a Washington Post OpEd by one of the saner foreign policy experts on the Washington scene.
"What the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan have in common," Anthony Cordesman writes, "is that it will take a major and consistent U.S. effort throughout the next administration at least to win either war.
"Any American political debate that ignores or denies the fact that these are long wars is dishonest and will ensure defeat. There are good reasons that the briefing slides in U.S. military and aid presentations for both battlefields don't end in 2008 or with some aid compact that expires in 2009. They go well beyond 2012 and often to 2020."
Only seven months ago, Cordesman was pointing out that some recent advances in Iraq were the result of “sheer luck,” such as Sunni tribesmen turning against Al Qaeda insurgents and quoting a U.S. official as describing our situation as "three dimensional chess in the dark while someone is shooting at you."
Rejecting the extremes of staying the course or immediate withdrawal, Cordesman made a case then for phasing down troop levels starting early this year. Now, another trip to Iraq and Afghanistan has persuaded him that "these are wars that can still be won" if we stay another decade or more.
Does the word quagmire ring a bell? In 1968, Richard Nixon promised to end the war in Vietnam and stayed another five years before accepting a humiliating defeat.
Now, once again, we are testing our will in places thousands of miles away against antagonists who are willing to do anything for as long it takes to get control of their own territory.
We started out to remove Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, a mission that has morphed into policing the entire Middle East, with Pakistan and Iran next on the horizon. Can Cordesman and John McCain explain how we do that without breaking our military and busting the budget?
"What the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan have in common," Anthony Cordesman writes, "is that it will take a major and consistent U.S. effort throughout the next administration at least to win either war.
"Any American political debate that ignores or denies the fact that these are long wars is dishonest and will ensure defeat. There are good reasons that the briefing slides in U.S. military and aid presentations for both battlefields don't end in 2008 or with some aid compact that expires in 2009. They go well beyond 2012 and often to 2020."
Only seven months ago, Cordesman was pointing out that some recent advances in Iraq were the result of “sheer luck,” such as Sunni tribesmen turning against Al Qaeda insurgents and quoting a U.S. official as describing our situation as "three dimensional chess in the dark while someone is shooting at you."
Rejecting the extremes of staying the course or immediate withdrawal, Cordesman made a case then for phasing down troop levels starting early this year. Now, another trip to Iraq and Afghanistan has persuaded him that "these are wars that can still be won" if we stay another decade or more.
Does the word quagmire ring a bell? In 1968, Richard Nixon promised to end the war in Vietnam and stayed another five years before accepting a humiliating defeat.
Now, once again, we are testing our will in places thousands of miles away against antagonists who are willing to do anything for as long it takes to get control of their own territory.
We started out to remove Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, a mission that has morphed into policing the entire Middle East, with Pakistan and Iran next on the horizon. Can Cordesman and John McCain explain how we do that without breaking our military and busting the budget?
Friday, January 25, 2008
Dumb and Dumber in Iraq
It took two kinds of stupidity to get us into the war--the Bush-Cheney Neo-Con brand and Saddam Hussein's. We get a closer look at the latter this weekend from the FBI agent who interrogated him after his capture.
Shrewd Saddam was so sure the US wouldn't invade, he told George Piro, that he refused to let inspectors verify that he had no WMD in order to fake out Iran.
"For him," Piro discloses on Sixty Minutes, "it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam" to "prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq."
During the run-up to the war, it was hard enough to reconcile George Bush's picture of the murderous dictator planning to send us a mushroom cloud with the buffoon on a balcony firing a rifle into the Baghdad air.
Even more baffling was our certainty that the invasion would be a "cakewalk" and our eagerness to send American troops into battle against nuclear and chemical weapons that could cause massive casualties.
As a reward for his bluffing and our being wrong about his WMD, Saddam ended up at the end of a rope, and we ended up with an endless occupation.
Shrewd Saddam was so sure the US wouldn't invade, he told George Piro, that he refused to let inspectors verify that he had no WMD in order to fake out Iran.
"For him," Piro discloses on Sixty Minutes, "it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam" to "prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq."
During the run-up to the war, it was hard enough to reconcile George Bush's picture of the murderous dictator planning to send us a mushroom cloud with the buffoon on a balcony firing a rifle into the Baghdad air.
Even more baffling was our certainty that the invasion would be a "cakewalk" and our eagerness to send American troops into battle against nuclear and chemical weapons that could cause massive casualties.
As a reward for his bluffing and our being wrong about his WMD, Saddam ended up at the end of a rope, and we ended up with an endless occupation.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Ahmadinejad's Snow Job
The little man in the over-sized leisure suit has Presidential candidates all atwitter with his planned visit to Ground Zero while he’s in New York to attend UN meetings.
Not since Saddam Hussein conned us with his coyness about WMD and fired off rifles for the TV cameras on a balcony in Baghdad has a loony Mideast head of state provoked so much Sturm and Drang over so little.
By eliciting outrage, the Iranian President succeeds in getting the international attention he so clearly craves. when disdain and disregard would be so much more appropriate and effective in dealing with a punk whose aim is to be taken seriously on the international stage.
If Iran is abetting the murder of our troops in Iraq, by all means the State Department and military should deal with it, but pumping up this pathetic tinpot who has serious problems in his own country is a bad idea.
Look at what it cost to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
Not since Saddam Hussein conned us with his coyness about WMD and fired off rifles for the TV cameras on a balcony in Baghdad has a loony Mideast head of state provoked so much Sturm and Drang over so little.
By eliciting outrage, the Iranian President succeeds in getting the international attention he so clearly craves. when disdain and disregard would be so much more appropriate and effective in dealing with a punk whose aim is to be taken seriously on the international stage.
If Iran is abetting the murder of our troops in Iraq, by all means the State Department and military should deal with it, but pumping up this pathetic tinpot who has serious problems in his own country is a bad idea.
Look at what it cost to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Greenspan's Oily Explanation
The exalted former Fed Chairman is sounding like a Mafia don these days explaining whether or not he ordered a hit on Saddam Hussein.
After writing in his memoirs that "the Iraq War is largely about oil," he is backpedaling. "I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."
Greenspan is maintaining his deniability by explaining that he never discussed the subject with Bush or Cheney but talked to White House officials, one of whom responded, "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil."
To think that Greenspan would have had to spell out his position to two former Texas oil men with a Soprano-like “I want him dead” stretches the imagination, but it’s good to know that the code of omerta is still being observed at the highest levels.
After writing in his memoirs that "the Iraq War is largely about oil," he is backpedaling. "I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."
Greenspan is maintaining his deniability by explaining that he never discussed the subject with Bush or Cheney but talked to White House officials, one of whom responded, "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil."
To think that Greenspan would have had to spell out his position to two former Texas oil men with a Soprano-like “I want him dead” stretches the imagination, but it’s good to know that the code of omerta is still being observed at the highest levels.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Smart People, Dumb Choices
As an antidote to Bush fatuity, we now have the thinking man’s explanation for supporting the war and getting it totally wrong.
A former Harvard professor now a member of the Canadian parliament, Michael Ignatieff writes in the New York Times Magazine today:
“The people who truly showed good judgment on Iraq predicted the consequences that actually ensued but also rightly evaluated the motives that led to the action. They did not necessarily possess more knowledge than the rest of us...What they didn’t do was take wishes for reality. They didn’t suppose, as President Bush did, that because they believed in the integrity of their own motives everyone else in the region would believe in it, too. They didn’t suppose that a free state could arise on the foundations of 35 years of police terror...
“I went to northern Iraq in 1992. I saw what Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds...I let emotion carry me past the hard questions, like: Can Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites hold together in peace what Saddam Hussein held together by terror? I should have known that emotions in politics, as in life, tend to be self-justifying...”
Ignatieff is more than a bit glib, but shrewd on the differences between academics and politicians: “Among intellectuals, judgment is about generalizing and interpreting particular facts as instances of some big idea. In politics, everything is what it is and not another thing. Specifics matter more than generalities. Theory gets in the way.”
But Ignatieff is too easy on himself. Going back to David Halberstam’s dissection of the intellectuals who misled JFK into Vietnam, the ironically titled “The Best and the Brightest,” it has become fashionable to dismiss thinking in favor of instinct in matters of war and peace, life and death. We need both, and we need them in people who admit human fallibility and still have the courage to make the best decisions they can.
Informed emotion may sound like an oxymoron, but it’s our best hope.
A former Harvard professor now a member of the Canadian parliament, Michael Ignatieff writes in the New York Times Magazine today:
“The people who truly showed good judgment on Iraq predicted the consequences that actually ensued but also rightly evaluated the motives that led to the action. They did not necessarily possess more knowledge than the rest of us...What they didn’t do was take wishes for reality. They didn’t suppose, as President Bush did, that because they believed in the integrity of their own motives everyone else in the region would believe in it, too. They didn’t suppose that a free state could arise on the foundations of 35 years of police terror...
“I went to northern Iraq in 1992. I saw what Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds...I let emotion carry me past the hard questions, like: Can Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites hold together in peace what Saddam Hussein held together by terror? I should have known that emotions in politics, as in life, tend to be self-justifying...”
Ignatieff is more than a bit glib, but shrewd on the differences between academics and politicians: “Among intellectuals, judgment is about generalizing and interpreting particular facts as instances of some big idea. In politics, everything is what it is and not another thing. Specifics matter more than generalities. Theory gets in the way.”
But Ignatieff is too easy on himself. Going back to David Halberstam’s dissection of the intellectuals who misled JFK into Vietnam, the ironically titled “The Best and the Brightest,” it has become fashionable to dismiss thinking in favor of instinct in matters of war and peace, life and death. We need both, and we need them in people who admit human fallibility and still have the courage to make the best decisions they can.
Informed emotion may sound like an oxymoron, but it’s our best hope.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Good Vibes From Wobblers' Woodstock
Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan and a bunch of the gang got together for Nelson Mandela’s 89th birthday, Peter Gabriel and Richard Branson came and, before you knew it, the golden oldies of world leaders were having their own Woodstock.
There were tears and humming along as Gabriel sang his song "Biko" about the anti-apartheid activist who died in police custody in 1977. But most of the time, the aged attendees were looking ahead.
"We’re coming up to the 60th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights," Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland, reminded them, adding that “people feel alienated. The elders can make it a living document."
With Branson’s prodding, the formerly powerful decided to form a group of elderly flower children to "bring hope and wisdom back into the world."
"The elders,” Branson predicted, “will play a role in bringing us together to help unnecessary human suffering and to celebrate the wonderful world we are privileged to be part of.”
In 2003 Mandela was to see Saddam Hussein and urge him to take steps to avoid war, but the U.S. invasion began before he could get there. "An elder or a group of elders could have persuaded Hussein to leave and we would have avoided the war," Branson said.
Asked why they might be able do now what they failed to do in their prime, Jimmy Carter answered, "There were problems we did not solve because of a lack of time, or because of very intense pressures from our own constituencies, or because we were too bogged down with multiple, simultaneous questions to answer.
"But the elders ... have complete freedom to escape from the restrains of political niceties and be able to do as Nelson Mandela pointed out--we can talk to anyone and become involved in any issue."
George Bush and Dick Cheney would be a good start, but don’t mention Woodstock.
There were tears and humming along as Gabriel sang his song "Biko" about the anti-apartheid activist who died in police custody in 1977. But most of the time, the aged attendees were looking ahead.
"We’re coming up to the 60th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights," Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland, reminded them, adding that “people feel alienated. The elders can make it a living document."
With Branson’s prodding, the formerly powerful decided to form a group of elderly flower children to "bring hope and wisdom back into the world."
"The elders,” Branson predicted, “will play a role in bringing us together to help unnecessary human suffering and to celebrate the wonderful world we are privileged to be part of.”
In 2003 Mandela was to see Saddam Hussein and urge him to take steps to avoid war, but the U.S. invasion began before he could get there. "An elder or a group of elders could have persuaded Hussein to leave and we would have avoided the war," Branson said.
Asked why they might be able do now what they failed to do in their prime, Jimmy Carter answered, "There were problems we did not solve because of a lack of time, or because of very intense pressures from our own constituencies, or because we were too bogged down with multiple, simultaneous questions to answer.
"But the elders ... have complete freedom to escape from the restrains of political niceties and be able to do as Nelson Mandela pointed out--we can talk to anyone and become involved in any issue."
George Bush and Dick Cheney would be a good start, but don’t mention Woodstock.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)