'Just World News' with Helena Cobban

BILL SAFIRE GOES BESERK

BILL SAFIRE GOES BESERK: I think that at heart of the present (and impending) imbroglio in Iraq lies not only a profound moral/ethical miscalculation-- to the effect that problems can be solved through violence-- but also a very profound political miscalculation: the one that predicted with seeming confidence that the Iraqi populace would certainly greet the arriving US troops as "liberators".

It is true, and most certainly significant, that there are already signs of deep disquiet, back-biting, finger-pointing, and just general CYA from inside the Pentagon regarding many operational aspects of this war. See, for example, the quotes in Thomas Ricks' really interesting article in today's Washington Post. The piece is titled, simply and ominously enough, "War could last months, officers say." Its lead reads:

"Despite the rapid advance of Army and Marine forces across Iraq over the past week, some senior U.S. military officers are now convinced that the war is likely to last months and will require considerably more combat power than is now on hand there and in Kuwait, senior defense officials said yesterday."

In the body of the piece, there are numerous quotes, on background, from an un-named U.S. Army general and other un-named administration officials. Ricks also uses on-the-record quotes from retired Army General Barry McCaffrey, and retired war-planning specialist Maj. Robert Killebrew. (Interestingly, much of what Ricks writes about seems to track positively with the excerpts I cited in my post Tuesday, about the Russians' apparently impressive ability to listen in on high-level Pentagon communications... Worth watching this more, I think.)

But possibly the funniest (saddest?) part of Ricks' article came near the end when, in an attempt I suppose to beef up the required "balance", he notes that, "Some Pentagon insiders and defense experts vigorously contested these pessimistic assessments." And then, the first of these folks whom he quotes is-- ta-da!!-- Newt Gingrich, the infamously ignorant and mean-spirited former Republican Speaker of the US House of Representatives who is now on Richard Perle's just-plain-infamous "Defense Planning Board". (Before Gingrich two-timed his wife Marianne, she was on the payroll of an Israeli settlers' organization, as I recall.)

At the heart of the present and set-to-continue strategic/operational imbroglio are issues like how fast the US ground forces should be moving forward, and how hard the US military in general should be bombarding the Iraqi cities. These are tough issues indeed for military planners to make a judgment call on. (And they also have truly heart-wrenching consequences, either way, regarding the life-chances of the combatants and civilians on the battlefield.)

But we have to recognize that antecedent to the design of the present US forces' present operational plan was the essential political judgment, as articulated most clearly last week by Vice-President Cheney, to the effect that once they entered Iraq the US forces would be greeted by the vast majority of the Iraqi people "as liberators".

That has not happened, and as of now it is highly unlikely that it will happen on any significant scale anywhere in the country (except, of course, in the already long-"liberated" north of the country. But that would be nothing new.)

Where did that very grave political miscalculation come from? Cheney and Richard Perle are among the administration (or, administration-linked) officials who have articulated it most clearly. But behind them stands a phalanx of well-connected, extremely rightwing commentators and intellectuals who try to pass themselves off as "Middle East specialists" when the need requires. The very same people who have sponsored Iraqi opposition "leader" Ahmed Chalabi all along -- even though there has been plenty of evidence in the past that Chalabi's claims to be able to speak for and about "all Iraqis" have been grossly exaggerated. Right now, those claims have been ground firmly into the mud that is engulfing many US encampments in the lower Tigris valley. (Sorry about the metaphor confusion there.)

So how are these radical rightwing ideologues dealing with the fact that the promised pro-US uprisings have nowhere taken place?

First of all, apoplectically. Second of all, by engaging in wild finger-pointing and saying something to the effect that that, "Well, that just proves how repressive Saddam Hussein is, because his people are out there, right now, stomping on all the free souls who would otherwise be doing the uprising... "

Actually, since I grew up in England, I have a simpler explanation. I was born in 1952, but my family and community's folk-culture was full of stories of the London Blitz. And the main story-line there was the way that, under intense bombardment from an outside power, Londoners came together despite their many class and political differences and rallied round their national leadership and their national symbols.

There are many other examples of that phenomenon in the history of the 20th century. (Stalingrad has already been mentioned in connection w/ Baghdad.) It actually takes an extremely brutal and sustained bombardment of a city to cause its leaders and people to cave...

Which brings me to Bill Safire, uber-cheerleader for Ahmed Chalabi (as for Ariel 'Bulldozers-Away' Sharon); and to Safire's truly remarkable and disturbing column in today's New York Times. This column is, disingenuously enough, titled "Help Iraqis Arise". In most of it, Safire puts forth his own feisty version of the argument that "the fact that Iraqis haven't risen against Saddam yet is just further proof of how repressive and heinous he is".

But at the end, Safire becomes downright terrifying. He writes,

"President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, meeting today, should emulate their World War II predecessors. They should pre-empt proposals for bombing halts and armistices with a ringing statement about the only way to end the war: by unconditional surrender.

Change the leaflets and broadcasts. No talks about terms; no amnesties for paramilitary killers; no deals on exile for torturers. Surrender, plain and simple."

Excuse me? How would we get such a surrender?

Is he honestly proposing the use of the same means that forced the German and Japanese surrenders in 1945? Lest we forget, those means included the fire-bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, and numerous other cities in the two countries -- not to mention the use of the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I am appalled. Saddened. Horrified. If somebody has such a sick mind that he would recommend following this path today, he needs to be hauled off to DC's fine psychiatric hospital, St. Elizabeth's.

Please, someone do this. For all of our sakes.

[And next up on JWN: News of my column in today's CSM; and an assessment of how the Iranians are sitting by and enjoying seeing their two sworn enemies slug it out in the mud of Mesopotamia.]