The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] as we destroy iraq to save it

[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ]

maureen dowd is right on.the language of the vietnam era is resurrected. and
oh yes, the image of two american soldiers searching the pockets of an iraqi
youth, perhaps looking for rocks that he, like his palestinian cousin, will
throw at the tanks and humvees of the occupier.

October 30, 2003
Eyes Wide Shut

ASHINGTON — In the thick of the war with Iraq, President Bush used to pop out
of meetings to catch the Iraqi information minister slipcovering grim reality
with willful, idiotic optimism.
"He's my man," Mr. Bush laughingly told Tom Brokaw about the entertaining
contortions of Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf, a k a "Comical Ali" and "Baghdad Bob,"
who assured reporters, even as American tanks rumbled in, "There are no American
infidels in Baghdad. Never!" and, "We are winning this war, and we will win
the war. . . . This is for sure."
Now Crawford George has morphed into Baghdad Bob.
Speaking to reporters this week, Mr. Bush made the bizarre argument that the
worse things get in Iraq, the better news it is. "The more successful we are
on the ground, the more these killers will react," he said.
In the Panglossian Potomac, calamities happen for the best. One could almost
hear the doubletalk echo of that American officer in Vietnam who said: "It was
necessary to destroy the village in order to save it."
The war began with Bush illogic: false intelligence (from Niger to nuclear)
used to bolster a false casus belli (imminent threat to our security) based on
a quartet of false premises (that we could easily finish off Saddam and the
Baathists, scare the terrorists and democratize Iraq without leeching our
Now Bush illogic continues: The more Americans, Iraqis and aid workers who
get killed and wounded, the more it is a sign of American progress. The more
dangerous Iraq is, the safer the world is. The more troops we seem to need in
Iraq, the less we need to send more troops.
The harder it is to find Saddam, Osama and W.M.D., the less they mattered
anyhow. The more coordinated, intense and sophisticated the attacks on our
soldiers grow, the more "desperate" the enemy is.
In a briefing piped into the Pentagon on Monday from Tikrit, Maj. Gen.
Raymond Odierno called the insurgents "desperate" eight times. But it is Bush
officials who seem desperate when they curtain off reality. They don't even
understand the political utility of truth.
After admitting recently that Saddam had no connection to 9/11, the president
pounded his finger on his lectern on Tuesday, while vowing to stay in Iraq,
and said, "We must never forget the lessons of Sept. 11."
Mr. Bush looked buck-passy when he denied that the White House, which throws
up PowerPoint slogans behind his head on TV, was behind the "Mission
Accomplished" banner. And Donald Rumsfeld looked duplicitous when he acknowledged in a
private memo, after brusquely upbeat public briefings, that America was in for
a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
No juxtaposition is too absurd to stop Bush officials from insisting nothing
is wrong. Car bombs and a blitz of air-to-ground missiles turned Iraq into a
hideous tangle of ambulances, stretchers and dead bodies, just after Paul
Wolfowitz arrived there to showcase successes.
But the fear of young American soldiers who don't speak the language or
understand the culture, who don't know who's going to shoot at them, was captured
in a front-page picture in yesterday's Times: two soldiers leaning down to
search the pockets of one small Iraqi boy.
Mr. Bush, staring at the campaign hourglass, has ordered that the
"Iraqification" of security be speeded up, so Iraqi cannon fodder can replace American
sitting ducks. But Iraqification won't work any better than Vietnamization
unless the Bush crowd stops spinning.
Neil Sheehan, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of "A Bright Shining Lie,"
recalls Robert McNamara making Wolfowitz-like trips to Vietnam, spotlighting
good news, yearning to pretend insecure areas were secure.
"McNamara was in a jeep in the Mekong Delta with an old Army colonel from
Texas named Dan Porter," Mr. Sheehan told me. "Porter told him, `Mr. Secretary,
we've got serious problems here that you're not getting. You ought to know what
they are.' And McNamara replied: `I don't want to hear about your problems. I
want to hear about your progress.' "
"If you want to be hoodwinked," Mr. Sheehan concludes, "it's easy."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search |
Corrections | Help | Back to Top

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]