A while ago, George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft wrote a Time magazine piece that included these thoughts:
- While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the
U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the
Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power
at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground
war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about
not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep,"
and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending
him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama,
which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad
and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed,
the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well.
Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously
trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war
world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the
U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international
response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion
route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly
hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps
barren--outcome.
Article comments
1 - Thomas
O'Brien was looking down at him speculatively. More than ever he had the air of a teacher taking pains with a wayward but promising child.
'There is a Party slogan dealing with the control of the past,' he said. 'Repeat it, if you please.'
'"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past,"' repeated Winston obediently.
'"Who controls the present controls the past,"' said O'Brien, nodding his head with slow approval.
George Orwell
1984
2 - Joe
I've got hard copy. One wrong move and I'll use the white out. I swear to god, I will!
3 - SlackMFer
ok, brian. first thing's first, i strongly doubt if george w asked time to remove this piece for many reasons. 1)why would he care? times change, you should know that. just because something was true in 1991 doesn't make it true today.
2)even if times haven't changed, the most you've got with this is that george w and his father disagree.. WOW!!!!!! stop the fucking presses.
4 - Wendy Dunst
ok, brian. first thing's first, i strongly doubt if george w asked time to remove this piece for many reasons.
I must have missed the part where Brian said that Dubya asked Time to remove the article.
2)even if times haven't changed, the most you've got with this is that george w and his father disagree.. WOW!!!!!! stop the fucking presses.
No, don't stop the presses. As IS THE POINT of this article, it has nothing to do with the fact that Dubya and Daddy (may) disagree. The point is that Time is attempting to tamper with the past -- the official record. Is that right? Or is it a dangerous precedent?
Note that Time did not simply take the issue offline, it actually tampered with its table of contents. Is that right? Morally?
5 - mark
Brian,
You seem very concerned about this article being deleted from the internet access, and frankly, I find it a bit wierd as well. But, you are saying it is some type of conspiracy by the Times and Bush and the "sky is falling". So here's a suggestion; get off your butt and go to your local library and ask to see a copy of the issue. Look into the libarian's eyes, if she/he looks shifty, then you know it is a conspiracy!
Seriously though, think about it, internet articles have a finite lifetime, only hard copies in the library last. So get away from your computer, and maybe go to a REAL library!
With respect, I suggest you read a book for a while and get off the treadmill of Blogcritic, at least for a week or so. Smell the roses while they are in bloom.
Have fun,
Mark
6 - Doctor Slack
"you are saying it is some type of conspiracy by the Times and Bush and the "sky is falling"."
Mark, you have now said that it's okay for Dubya to burn books, rewrite history and shoot scholars on sight, and that you support those actions.
No, wait, you haven't said that. Sorry, just wanted to join the little game of "build the strawman" you were playing with Brian's post, which of course nowhere alleges a "conspiracy" or that "the sky is falling."
What Brian has said is that the TIMES has taken a troubling step by purging its online archive. Indeed, on some level, you appear to agree with him. So, why bob and weave and argue against strawmen? You're damaging your credibility, not his.
The online archive is, I would add, where the largest numbers of people are likeliest to access an article that has direct bearing on current events. It therefore seems vapid to dismiss its importance.
7 - Steve Rhodes
You can read the piece in the Iraq War Reader.
8 - Al Barger
Thank Rand for The Memory Hole. Yahweh and Allah bless them.
For whatever reason, it's clearly proven that SOMEBODY made a conscious effort to alter the historic record. Yes, internet archives may be taken down, but they just took this one item, not the whole issue. Editing the table of contents is particularly damning.
This is NONSENSE, and should be condemned by all honest intellectuals, whether you agree with Bush the senior, Bush the junior, or hate them both.
The editors at the magazine are the ones who are responsible for their own website. They should have this little scandal blown up in their faces.