We captured an old man in a hole!

Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own

Article comments

Subscribe to comment RSS

• 1 - Andrew

  Dec 17, 2003 at 7:34 pm

  There are some good arguments that were advanced by opponents to the war. Mr. Fleming's revisionist history, however, is not a good recap of those arguments. As Hillary Clinton stated just this past week, virtually everyone with a functioning brain felt Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction for years prior to the actual start of the most recent war. She has repeatedly stated that she felt he was a danger to this, as well as other countries, and is happy that he is no longer there. She most certainly has problems with the way the aftermath of the war has been handled; but she and a great many others from the Clinton Administration would not associate themselves with Mr. Fleming's absurd formulations.

• 2 - Eric Olsen

  Dec 17, 2003 at 8:34 pm

  Brian, I like it when you write things like this, even when they are almost totally full of shit, because when you try you are a very good writer and it's even kind of easy to get pulled along in the flow - you use repetition especially well - and I like your flair for drama.
  
  But, when you boil it down, there isn't much left in the bottom of the pan:
  
  Saddam was a direct and credible threat to anyone and everyone all along. He started a war, if you'll recall, about 12 years ago by just grabbing the land of a neighbor for his own. This is called aggression. He did not abide by the terms of his agreement that ended that war. He tried to kill Bush 1, he was implicated in the first WTC bombing - how in God's name can you say the fucker wasn't a threat? That's just foolish.
  
  We don't know if there are WMD in Iraq now, or if there were but they were destroyed or moved, we know he was trying to develop and obtain them from various sources. Obviously, it would be more convenient for those in favor of the war if they were found - because they haven't been found, YET, and might not be found ever, does not mean they weren't there. This one is pretty much a wash.
  
  I'm not sure what country you're talking about, but we sure as hell won the first phase of the war remarkably quickly and with remarkably little bloodshed on all sides, and we will likewise "win the peace." Capturing Saddam is a huge step in that direction and that is why I am so happy about it. No one ever thought it would be easy, painless, immediate, or without complication. I have no idea who told you that but they were wrong.
  
  This is about exactly what should, and could, have been expected. Those who have had their privileges taken away are pissed and are killing people as a result. They are a tiny but dangerous minority and they will be dealt with, ARE being dealt with.
  
  There is really only one question: is the world a better place than it was before the war?
  
  The answer is fuck yes.

• 3 - Natalie Davis

  Dec 17, 2003 at 10:41 pm

  That's one opinion.

• 4 - Brian Flemming

  Dec 17, 2003 at 10:58 pm

  Ah, the memory hole.
  
  Here's a fun game.
  
  Read this February 28, 2003 article filled with statements from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and see if you can spot which predictions were off by only around 100% and which were off by, oh, a kajillion percent.
  
  The Office of Special Plans reported to Wolfowitz, by the way.
  
  Josh Marshall nailed the wishful thinking in this prescient article:
  
  

  [...]
  
  The hawks' grand plan differs depending on whom you speak to, but the basic outline runs like this: The United States establishes a reasonably democratic, pro-Western government in Iraq--assume it falls somewhere between Turkey and Jordan on the spectrum of democracy and the rule of law. Not perfect, representative democracy, certainly, but a system infinitely preferable to Saddam's. The example of a democratic Iraq will radically change the political dynamics of the Middle East. When Palestinians see average Iraqis beginning to enjoy real freedom and economic opportunity, they'll want the same themselves. With that happy prospect on one hand and implacable United States will on the other, they'll demand that the Palestinian Authority reform politically and negotiate with Israel. That in turn will lead to a real peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians. A democratic Iraq will also hasten the fall of the fundamentalist Shi'a mullahs in Iran, whose citizens are gradually adopting anti-fanatic, pro-Western sympathies. A democratized Iran would create a string of democratic, pro-Western governments (Turkey, Iraq, and Iran) stretching across the historical heartland of Islam. Without a hostile Iraq towering over it, Jordan's pro-Western Hashemite monarchy would likely come into full bloom. Syria would be no more than a pale reminder of the bad old days. (If they made trouble, a U.S. invasion would take care of them, too.) And to the tiny Gulf emirates making hesitant steps toward democratization, the corrupt regimes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt would no longer look like examples of stability and strength in a benighted region, but holdouts against the democratic tide. Once the dust settles, we could decide whether to ignore them as harmless throwbacks to the bad old days or deal with them, too. We'd be in a much stronger position to do so since we'd no longer require their friendship to help us manage ugly regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Syria.
  
  The audacious nature of the neocons' plan makes it easy to criticize but strangely difficult to dismiss outright. Like a character in a bad made-for-TV thriller from the 1970s, you can hear yourself saying, "That plan's just crazy enough to work."
  
  But like a TV plot, the hawks' vision rests on a willing suspension of disbelief, in particular, on the premise that every close call will break in our favor: The guard will fall asleep next to the cell so our heroes can pluck the keys from his belt. The hail of enemy bullets will plink-plink-plink over our heroes' heads. And the getaway car in the driveway will have the keys waiting in the ignition. Sure, the hawks' vision could come to pass. But there are at least half a dozen equally plausible alternative scenarios that would be disastrous for us.
  
  To begin with, this whole endeavor is supposed to be about reducing the long-term threat of terrorism, particularly terrorism that employs weapons of mass destruction. But, to date, every time a Western or non-Muslim country has put troops into Arab lands to stamp out violence and terror, it has awakened entire new terrorist organizations and a generation of recruits. Placing U.S. troops in Riyadh after the Gulf War (to protect Saudi Arabia and its oilfields from Saddam) gave Osama bin Laden a cause around which he built al Qaeda. Israel took the West Bank in a war of self-defense, but once there its occupation helped give rise to Hamas. Israel's incursion into southern Lebanon (justified at the time, but transformed into a permanent occupation) led to the rise of Hezbollah. Why do we imagine that our invasion and occupation of Iraq, or whatever countries come next, will turn out any differently?
  
  [...]

  
  
  It's a great read. And it's the kind of thing that pro-warriors who are still deluding themselves need to read.
  
  Not that they will.

• 5 - Brian Flemming

  Dec 17, 2003 at 11:03 pm

  Oh, and Eric, thanks for noticing my use of repetition. I repeated
  
  Office of Special Plans
  
  a lot because, well, I was trying to get the attention of pro-war folks like you.
  
  Have you looked into the Office of Special Plans at all? Do you approve of its formation? Do you think its conclusions were more accurate than the CIA's?
  
  That's
  
  Office of Special Plans
  Office of Special Plans
  Office of Special Plans
  
  I've never heard a single pro-warrior defend this office. It's as if they don't want to admit it exists.

• 6 - Joe

  Dec 17, 2003 at 11:45 pm

  Why do you get so wrapped up in what people you have such little regard for think?

• 7 - Mac Diva

  Dec 17, 2003 at 11:56 pm

  Another home run! But, I have no illusions that Brian's accurate analysis will penetrate the pro-warrior's walled minds. The first two of his items -- the presence of WMD and threateningness of Saddam -- having already been proven wrong, the Bushites and their supporters will now pour all their energies into screwing up number three even worse. There will no more be a peaceful, democratic model of government in Iraq a year from now than I can walk on water. I don't know how Brian continues to so actively stand against the tide. Though I maintain my own opinions adamantly, I lack the energy to keep trying, trying and trying to reach people with an alternative message to what they are 'supposed to believe' the way he does. Instead, I get annoyed and demand they think for themselves. I lack patience. Kudos to Brian.

• 8 - Al Barger

  Dec 18, 2003 at 2:16 am

  Diva, it sometimes seems as if agreeing pretty much completely with every last pinko left-wing platitude that you and Brian spout is the only way to prove that we think for ourselves.
  
  This strikes me as slightly Orwellian, in a goofy Confederacy of Dunces sort of way.

• 9 - Mac Diva

  Dec 18, 2003 at 10:23 am

  Brian and I don't agree about everything, Barger. He likes .Mac. He eats meat. We probably also disagree about eco-terrorism, which I had intended to write about this week, but didn't get time to.
  
  I agree with Brian often because he is smart, an excellent researcher, and a good writer. . . . And, very, very cute.

• 10 - TDavid

  Dec 18, 2003 at 12:33 pm

  IMO, there are all too many of these type war posts with no solution. Perhaps Brian or somebody else that has written a post complaining about the current situation in Iraq could offer a post (or links to posts they have already written) listing some possible solutions? Now that we're knee deep in this, hindsight is 20/20, so where do we go from here?
  
  I'd be interested in reading something, anything here at BC from the Bush-haters that offers some solution.
  
  I may have missed prior postings on this because generally speaking I have tried to stay away from religion and politics threads (they are often way too subjective for my interests). I'm doing a study with my son on these two topics.

• 11 - TR01

  Dec 18, 2003 at 12:51 pm

  I'd be interested in reading something, anything here at BC from the Bush-haters that offers some solution.

  
  
  Hey, you know who else labels any criticism of their leader as "hate"?
  
  Cults.
  
  Also, Tdavid, you apparently didn't read this part of the posting:
  
  

  What does it mean that the pro-warriors were so terribly wrong about the key planks in their support for the war? To me, it means we need to evaluate just how these myths came to be believed--for example, why the brand-new, custom-made Office of Special Plans' conclusions were accepted when the established intelligence community's conclusions were not.
  
  But the first step is to admit that these conclusions were wrong.

  
  
  In a post about the problem of wishful thinking and self-deception, that sounds like a step toward a solution to me.

• 12 - TDavid

  Dec 18, 2003 at 12:57 pm

  Hello TR01 - Ok, "Bush-hater" was a bad choice of words on my part. I should have said "those who dislike Bush" so I'll grant you that one.
  
  However, I didn't see now or upon my first two readings any solution in the blockquoted paragraph.
  
  I meant what do we do now. Ok, so they should admit they were wrong, fine, but that is not a solution to where to go from here. I mean, a plan of some sort. Should the troops be removed within 90 days? Should Saddam be turned over right away, within X number of days? That's what I mean.
  
  Brian, just curious, is this one of your many pen names?

• 13 - Chris

  Dec 18, 2003 at 2:52 pm

  I like the reasoning that since we caught "an old man in a hole" that automatically proves Saddam wasn't a threat, in the near or long term future.
  
  As for the WMD's, for over 10 years most Governments assumed he had them but were not willing, beyond sanctions which only proved to hurt the general populace instead of Saddam, to do anything about it. Well, we did and find out that they probably don't exist, although as Prime Minister Blair pointed out, there are underground labatories that were found and who knows what else underground. Whether you agreed with what happened or not, the world is immeasurably safer than it was back in March -- Saddam is desposed and the perceived threat of WMD is no more.
  
  As far the PNAC analysis is concerned, the facts on the ground change at a much slower pace than the opinion on the Internet.

• 14 - Chris

  Dec 18, 2003 at 2:54 pm

  Sheesh -- laboratories
  

• 15 - Joe

  Dec 18, 2003 at 4:50 pm

  TR01- While channeling the Church Lady may a have a satisfying rhetorical snap, it is a rather weak device. For instance:
  
  Hey, you know who else goes out in the streets in order to try to persuade others to their points of view?
  
  Cults!
  
  Just some friendly observation!

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.

Name:

URL:

Remember name and url?

Comment:

Please preview your comment.