The Not Very Secret Strike on Baghdad

[Sean Tudor]

If I was planning to attack Baghdad and kill Saddam I would not be broadcasting my intentions to the world media.

Why are the Dubya Boys telling all and sundry about this ? Isn't this supposed to be secret or are they trying to scare Saddam out of Baghdad ?

[Tom Chick]

Sean,

You're not supposed to know about this, so pretend you didn't hear it. Steam actually shot out of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's ears when he heard these plans were leaked.

-Tom

[Supertanker]

It is the world's cheapest way to split Iraq's forces. If you actually have the capability to carry out a deep strike, make your opponent think you may do it. He then must split his forces to defend the front against traditional ground attack, and his capital against a deep strike.

In this case, I would guess Saddam will want some of his best (read: most loyal) forces defending him in the capital. Move them away from the front with this ploy, attack & beat the remaining conscript forces, and then pound the better units from the air as he tries to move them back to the front. If he fails to move any forces to the capital, then attack to fix his loyal troops at the front, then actually do the deep strike and take him out.

[Kevin Perry]

Leaks like this are also an excellent way of testing the waters for public response (both domestic and worldwide). Aside from a few snickers about the paternal legacy, everyone seems to be okay with the plans for war.

Or, to mangle another metaphor, the trial balloon made it up OK. Could mean it's safe, could mean the winds weren't paying attention.

It's clear that Bush 43 is not falling for the ol' "Let's just wait 'em out" strategy (cf. Cuba).

I'm not especially bitter & cynical, but I'd expect to see the troops being warmed up in time for the mid-term elections.

Also, before we unilaterally and fundamentally alter the power stucture of the Middle East, the PTB may be waiting for some dust to settle over Israel. Some of the caution and slowness may be a silent detente keeping Saddam out of the Israel/Palestine fracas at the moment.

[Bub, Andrew]

There's considerable dissent in Iraq already and leaking the plans will keep options open and Saddam living inconveniently. According to a recent Atlantic article from Mark "Blackhawk Down" Bowden, Saddam is already sleeping in different secret places every night. Part of this, I'm thinking a big part, is a psych game. Especially since "experts" are saying that there's no way we can mobilize against Iraq while we try and keep Afghanistan nice and stable and there's really no way we can invade quickly without a very obvious and protracted build-up. If anything I think (and this is a wild semi-informed guess) that we're rabble rousing and creating instability and hoping for a coup-de-tate to support, or a popular uprising to back.

I think it's pretty naive to think this is a leak, mainly because it's leaked three times since last October (November, January and now-ish). Rumsfeld can shoot ear steam pretty much on cue these days. If they were real leaks, they'd have been plugged by now.

[Tom Chick]

I think it's pretty naive to think this is a leak, mainly because it's leaked three times since last October (November, January and now-ish).

The plans referred to in the New York Times are new. Unless you broke the news earlier, Bub, and no one noticed, they hadn't been reported until the New York Times quoted senior Pentagon officials. What's this "November, January, and now-ish" stuff you're talking about?

The ensuing shake-up in the Defense Department's press relations are real. There are very real efforts to find out who did this and to see to it that these sorts of things don't happen anymore. This is not a 'business as usual' leak. It is something that had triggered a response in the Defense Department, the Pentagon, and even the CIA. I guess they're all in on the act, huh?

However, you must know Donald Rumsfeld well enough to tell when he's only acting angry. I guess it doesn't matter that cracking down on leaks has been a recurring theme of his since the military's actions in Afghanistan began last October. Could you explain to us which crackdowns were staged and which were real?

All this speculation about psych-ops and keeping Saddam on his toes is pretty silly and overly elaborate. I'm sure we're perfectly capable of reaching Iraq without resorting to sideshows in which information is purposely fed to the New York Times and several government agencies respond with staged alarm. All Rumsfeld has to do is go on Evans and Novak and do a little tough talk. I'm pretty sure they get CNN in Baghdad.

-Tom

[Toddy]

Leak or not -- and this is a pretty big story to sneak out of the Pentagon, if it is a leak -- I don't know how the US can even be considering invading Iraq right now. There are all kinds of stories in the UK press of late about Saudi Arabia being very close to open revolt (apparently a big rallying point right now is the death of 14 kids at a girls school -- because they were herded back into the burning building by the morality police for having the temerity of leaving the flames in their nightclothes), I know first-hand that much of southern Jordan has been a tinderbox for going on a decade now, and there is always something threatening to boil over in Egypt.

Invading Iraq at any time in the next year would be very, very risky. You would put the Saudi monarchy in serious jeopardy, and if it falls, there's a very real chance that Jordan would go fundamentalist soon afterward. All of this would put great pressure on Israel and ratchet up the tension in Egypt. As much as I'd like to see Saddam and his insane sons strung up, the consequences of military intervention to achieve this goal could be very grim. At any rate, the Palestinian question has to be answered first. So thankfully we've got Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson in Ramallah tonight, so Jewish and Arab kids should be going to school together by the end of next week.

[Toddy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/30/international/middleeast/30JORD.html

Just noticed this. Interesting, and it backs up the general undercurrent for the past few months that Powell is the only one in Bush's inner circle with some reservations about this Iraq plan. Abdullah will certainly refuse to let the US use Jordan to invade Iraq. It would be suicide to do so, both personally for the king and for the Jordanian monarchy as a whole.

[Toddy]

If you actually have the capability to carry out a deep strike, make your opponent think you may do it. He then must split his forces to defend the front against traditional ground attack, and his capital against a deep strike.

But Saddam won't move troops away from the capital, regardless. He knows that he doesn't have the military might to take on the US in any region, so tactics aren't a concern here. No matter what the US does, Saddam's not going to move the Republican Guard very far from his person. And neither Saddam nor his best soldiers are going to leave populated areas. Let's face it, the Kurds have taken northern Iraq and the no-fly zone has limited Iraqi military operations in the south. If the US does invade, the battle will be fought in and around Baghdad. Which makes such an operation very risky, if only for the possible huge civilian loss of life.

[Tom Chick]

I don't know how the US can even be considering invading Iraq right now.

We've been rattling sabers at Iraq quite a bit louder since 9/11, and not just by including them in a list of the axis of evil. However, I don't think there's any immediate intention of actually invading them.

But that doesn't mean there aren't very specific plans about how such an invasion would go. C'mon, Brett, you know how the military works. Hell, I'd imagine there are even very specific plans for how we'd invade Canada. Let's just hope no one leaks *those* to the New York Times!

"In a three pronged assault, the Marines would dress up as a hockey team, the Air Force would pretend to deliver beer, and Paul Schaffer and Celine Dion would be tapped to provide intel."

(Sorry I couldn't come up with any inventive Canadian stereotypes...)

-Tom

[chet]

With Powell being ignored again, and again, I was wondering why he was sticking around. But now I think he is scared to leave. Bush really is a nut case, he ignores any moderates he put into place and just listens to the likes of Ashcroft.


Chet

[Kevin Perry]

Brett's right, but that won't stop anything.

We have no firm base in the region to attack Baghdad. If the US goes active in the region, Saudi Arabia will likely fall apart. I don't think they'll go fundamentalist/theocratic in the long run, but there will be chaos there for several years.

A similar thing will happen in Iraq, post-Saddam--regardless of how Saddam goes away.

Waiting out the situation is the wisest course, but I don't know how likely that is. Powell is doing all he can.

[Bub, Andrew]

The plans referred to in the New York Times are new. What's this "November, January, and now-ish" stuff you're talking about?

Sure, those plans are new, but the Pentagon has had plans since before the Afghan invasion. As much as I hate pulling a Wumpus here, you seem awfully new to this developing story Chick. (Sorry these links are so Slate heavy, I can't figure out most archives or they aren't linked. The New Republic and Economist have been talking this up for at least as long.)

Slate, November 2001 - http://slate.msn.com/?id=2059126
"Iraq Not"
Lately the administration has been saying things that hint it may indeed go after Saddam. At a biological weapons conference in Geneva on Nov. 19, the State Department's John Bolton cited five countries that are pursuing germ agents. "Beyond Al Qaeda," he declared, "the most serious concern is Iraq." National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice recently said, "The world would clearly be better off and the Iraqi people would be better off if Saddam Hussein were not in power." On Nov. 28, President Bush himself warned Iraq to admit outside weapons inspectors or face serious consequences. What would those be? "He'll find out," said Bush.

Slate December 2001, "Back in Iraq?"
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2059873 "And there's some evidence that suggests the Pentagon may indeed be planning for just such an operation. On Dec. 9, the Washington Post's Susan B. Glasser reported that Lt. Gen. Paul Mikolashek, head of the U.S. 3rd Army, was sent to Camp Doha, a U.S. base in Kuwait. According to Rear Adm. Craig Quigley, Mikolashek's new duties will be to supervise U.S. Army Forces Central Command operations in Afghanistan. As Glasser writes: "Quigley said the transfer did not signal a growing U.S. ground operation. 'That's not necessarily the case,' he said, but he added that commanders do not rule out the possibility of more troops being moved into Afghanistan. 'It's been our pattern, if we find we have a need, we'll move to send people who have that capability.' " Perhaps those troops (and many more) may also move into Iraq."

The New Republic, sometime mid-January 2001 had an editorial urging that we make good our promises to invade Iraq. Sorry, I can't find this issue in my closet.

Newsweek, January 10th 2001 asked "how did these Iraqi invasion plans possibly leak to the press if it wasn't intentional?"

Iraq Now? Feb 02, Slate http://slate.msn.com/?id=2061799

The New Yorker February 18th 2002 "Secret plans have been drawn up to invade Iraq for months now, according to Pentagon sources."

March 02, Slate: Robert Wright: "All signs continue to point to war with Iraq—not as a last resort, but as a first choice."

The Atlantic, May 2002 "Ten years later a new President Bush is in the White House, with a new national mission to remove Saddam"


All this speculation about psych-ops and keeping Saddam on his toes is pretty silly and overly elaborate. I'm sure we're perfectly capable of reaching Iraq without resorting to sideshows in which information is purposely fed to the New York Times and several government agencies respond with staged alarm. All Rumsfeld has to do is go on Evans and Novak and do a little tough talk. I'm pretty sure they get CNN in Baghdad.


Yeah, Rumsfeld may be angry about this particular leak. I'll grant you that but you really don't think we're using psych ops here? What else makes sense? Do you believe this administration is stupid enough to not only leak plans to the press at least TWICE but also continuously refer to a planned invasion with on the record quotes for the past year? Even the State of the Union Address made the plans kinda... not secret.

Don't you think having a "staged leak" is more effective psych ops than a plain statement on CNN?

EDIT: Added to final paragraph

[Jim F.]

The U.S. government would obviously love to invade Iraq and finish what it started, but I doubt it will happen.

We are too controlled by international opinion to take a step as large as overthrowing Saddam. No other nation's representatives, not even the always cooporative Tony Blair, are coming out and supporting invasion plans.

The fact is, we don't have anything we can use as an acceptable excuse to invade Iraq. Oh sure, we can say that Iraq supports terrorism, but that's not exactly a revelation. Iran, Pakistan, Syria, and many other nations support different forms of terrorism as well. If we invaded every nation that gave some kind of support to a terrorist orginizaton, there wouldn't be many nations left in the world. Hell, the U.S. itself gives money, arms, and training to what other nations would deem "terrorists".

So unless Saddam does something that is truly provocative like, say, being caught shipping in a load of plutonium, the U.S. government doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to reasons to invade.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Saddam toppled and a more benign ruler put into place, but that just isn't going to happen in the current enviornment.

[James Galimo]

All I know is that Saddam better build some barracks and start cranking out troops. Otherwise we're likely to pull a tank rush on 'em.

Perhaps he doesn't have enough peons? Or maybe his gold mine just ran out?

[Tom Chick]

Sure, those plans are new, but the Pentagon has had plans since before the Afghan invasion. As much as I hate pulling a Wumpus here, you seem awfully new to this developing story Chick.

You apparently have no idea what you're talking about. Let me make it simple:

1) No one's disputing that the Pentagon has had plans to invade Iraq. But you must have missed the story about the NY Time leaking the specifics of that plan. Feel free to read a newspaper and come back when you find out what happened.

2) You mentioned this is the third time these plans have been leaked, which is news to me and the rest of the world. Maybe you're getting your own private leaks, in which case you should break the news and scoop the NY Times. Otherwise, I still have no idea what you're talking about. This is the first time the plans were leaked and no amount of slate links is going to change that.

3) You say it's naive to think these were leaks. Either you don't know what naive means or you don't know what leak means. Let me know if you need help with either of those.

-Tom

[Tom Chick]

So unless Saddam does something that is truly provocative like, say, being caught shipping in a load of plutonium, the U.S. government doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to reasons to invade.


As it stands right now, you're right of course. And I'm continually suprirsed at how much Saddam gets away with in terms of saying 'fuck you' to UN arms inspectors and kicking around Kurds.

But if it came down to it, I could see a fairly long period of courting international opinion to set up a US attack. I imagine part of the reason Rumsfeld and Bush are so irked at the invasion plans being leaked is that it shows more of their hand than they're ready to disclose. It's like someone accidentally opened the door on a back room meeting and spoiled the plans.

Also, Kevin has good points about Saudi Arabia and Iran. Iran, especially, is a big question mark right now. Their reformist leaders aren't pulling as much weight as we'd hoped they would and there's no telling where they're going to end up.

-Tom

[Chris Floyd]

Tom, your musings about Iran reminded me of this interesting piece that followed up the State of the Union address. Those who think the "axis of evil" statement was a foreign policy foul-up probably don't know the reaction from inside those accused nations:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001828

[Tom Chick]

Chris,

Yeah, that axis of evil stuff was probably carefully calculated. Most of what the President says is carefully controlled, which is why gaffes over simple things like incorrect terminology in the China/Taiwan situation cause problems (I think Powell flubbed this on one occasion). There was even an AP story last week about Bush calling the Samatha Runion murder suspect an actual murderer. He can't say that! Just ask Richard Jewel.

As for Iran, they're a strange situation. They've been trying to cozy up with us lately (in the past week, I think there have even been some overtures), but it's a tricky balancing act for their leadership. Twenty years of wacked-out theocracy can really fuck up a nation in the long teìƒR0D

-Tom

[Kevin Perry]

Iran is quite complicated.

They've been stable long enough to have developed a middle class despite some of the more outrageous theocratic issues. So there's now a large, even vaguely wealthy group of people with a vested interest in maintaining a status quo--meaning no massive social upheavals, please. So they've progressed towards a moderate (from Iranian perspective) pretend-elected government.

Saudi Arabia and Iraq do not have a middle class to add inertia. Saudi Arabia didn't exist before the Saud dynasty (it's in the name, innit?), and won't thereafter.

It's interesting to ponder whether Iraq might not have been better off if we had toppled Saddam 10 years ago, even if we completely negligently abandoned the country afterwards.

[Anonymous]

Tom, your musings about Iran reminded me of this interesting piece that followed up the State of the Union address. Those who think the "axis of evil" statement was a foreign policy foul-up probably don't know the reaction from inside those accused nations:


I know a couple of Iranian grad students, and they were not happy about that speach at all. Neither of them are at all supportive of the current government structure in Iran, but hope for change without a bloody struggle.

The one in my lab was recently back in Iran for a month and the impression I got from talking to her was that people were pretty indignant about Bush's comments.

Mike

[Anonymous]

"It's interesting to ponder whether Iraq might not have been better off if we had toppled Saddam 10 years ago, even if we completely negligently abandoned the country afterwards."

To most of the things posted in this thread there is a simple fact that I would guess even the unimaginative could figure out what it means, that is: Iraq is the second largest source of Oil IN THE WORLD. Chaos or another Venezuela is THE LAST thing bush and his Big Oil handlers want.

"As it stands right now, you're right of course. And I'm continually suprirsed at how much Saddam gets away with in terms of saying 'fuck you' to UN arms inspectors and kicking around Kurds."

That quote is without a doubt THE quote of the fucking month. Apparently you have never heard of a little nation called Israel? and you must have missed it when sharon told the UN to fuck off with their investigation of the massacre at Jenin. Where Sharon refuses any UN investigation and Bush BACKS HIM on it!

[Jason McCullough]

Sinner's back! We missed you!

[Tom Chick]

Where Sharon refuses any UN investigation and Bush BACKS HIM on it!

I presume you're talking about the Israeli raid in Jenin where the Palestinians were organizing suicide bombings under the aegis of a UN refugee camp? And what exactly did you want investigated, Mr. Nologo? So you're saying we should treat Iraq and Israel the same way? You make about as much sense as Bub's "the plans were already leaked three times!".

At any rate, I'm happy to talk about Israel if you want (I lean waaaaaaay right on that issue), but we were talking about Iraq in this thread.

-Tom

[Kevin Perry]

To most of the things posted in this thread there is a simple fact that I would guess even the unimaginative could figure out what it means, that is: Iraq is the second largest source of Oil IN THE WORLD. Chaos or another Venezuela is THE LAST thing bush and his Big Oil handlers want.


I'm guessing you're referring to the fact that Iraq has the second largest estimated oil reserves in the world, less than half that of Saudi Arabia but only a little ahead of tiny Kuwait.

However, Iraq is not the second largest source of anything right now, given the sanctions against them. Saddam would love nothing more than to be the second largest source of oil in the world, so he could get the hard currency he desperately wants.

If there were chaos, oil would assuredly flow-- more than is flowing now.

What effect would that have on the price of tea in China? What shadow motivations would you ascribe to 'Big Oil' then? If the Powers That Be wanted access to the oil, ending the UN Sanctions would do that instantly. We've dealt with Saddam as a friendly before (up until he grabbed Kuwait, in fact), and could easily do so again, especially given his position as a stalwart non-Muslim. I've never seen any info indicating that Saddam had anything to do with Al-Qaeda other than applause. Post-Sept. 11, we could have sought detente (at least) with Baghdad on a strategic basis.

So if Bush 43 really were in the pocket of (and only of) Big Oil, the Axis of Evil speech was pretty stupid.

[Bub, Andrew]

2) You mentioned this is the third time these plans have been leaked, which is news to me and the rest of the world. Maybe you're getting your own private leaks, in which case you should break the news and scoop the NY Times. Otherwise, I still have no idea what you're talking about. This is the first time the plans were leaked and no amount of slate links is going to change that.

No, I said it was the third leak involving these plans. Or at any rate, that's what I meant.
1. In November I recall a story, probably in the New Republic, that cited a Pentagon leak that "plans to invade Iraq existed". Since I can't find it right now, I'll concede that point and mention it now only as an explanation why I made the claim there were three leaks in the first place. Is that acceptable?
2. In January I cited this in that post above with the Slate links, the one you ignored: "Newsweek, January 10th 2001 asked "how did these Iraqi invasion plans possibly leak to the press if it wasn't intentional?" the story refers to a Pentagon leak that revealed that they were detailed invasion plans of Iraq.
3. July's NYTimes reporting, which is when parts of those plans became public.

By the way, Tom, did you know there have been three different leaked Iraq plans stories in the NYT this month? Did you miss the first two? I confess I missed them both, but Jack Shafer didn't. Interesting article, it really takes the NYTimes to task on these stories and their "import": http://slate.msn.com/?id=2068652

"By placing the stories on Page One, the paper commits the unpardonable sin of commanding reader attention that's not really warranted."

Anyway, unlike you I'm still not convinced that Rumsfeld's "I'm so angry" act is 100% bonafide.

[Erik]

the massacre at Jenin

Even Mary Robinson has stopped calling Jenin a "massacre", so you can stand down Sinner.

[Chris Floyd]

I've never seen any info indicating that Saddam had anything to do with Al-Qaeda other than applause. Post-Sept. 11, we could have sought detente (at least) with Baghdad on a strategic basis.

Maybe Saddam isn't directly involved with Al-Qaeda, but:

1) No one can stop him from creating and selling weapons of mass destruction. Do you think he'd be hesitant to hand a biological weapon to Al-Qaeda if it would hurt Americans?

2) He encourages other forms of terrorism by doing things like handing oodles of cash to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Saddam may not be a fanatical Muslim, but he is a "fanatical" Arab (this is the conclusion of Bowden's article referenced earlier). That means he is just as dangerous to Israel and America as a Muslim extremist and he is certainly more likely to work with a group like Al-Qaeda than support us against them.

[Kevin Perry]

Oh, sorry, Chris. I wasn't trying to say that Saddam is a good guy-- far from it. For the ultimate stability of the region and thus the world, a regime change is needed.

I was trying to show that the Big Oil Conspiracy to Get Rid of Saddam is silly, and that there was no reason to connect Saddam and 9-11 directly. In a realpolitik sense, we could have used him if we'd wanted to. Instead, Bush 43 has chosen to take 9-11 and turn it into a license to go Evil Regime hunting.

Fine by me, as long as we're careful.

[Toddy]

[quote]As it stands right now, you're right of course. And I'm continually suprirsed at how much Saddam gets away with in terms of saying 'fuck you' to UN arms inspectors and kicking around Kurds.

That's one of the strangest parts of all this--Saddam isn't kicking the Kurds around right now. The Kurds have set up a government in the north that is autonomous in almost every way. Saddam is powerless there right now. Because of that, and because Bush Sr. screwed them over at the end of the Gulf War, the Kurds don't want US interference in the country. If Saddam falls, the northern no-fly zone goes with him, and centralized control over all of Iraq will go back to Baghdad. Of course, the easy solution to all of this would be to formalize the existence of an independent Kurdish state, which should happen but cannot happen because of the Turkish war on them for the past two decades in Anatolia. The Turks would never stand for the creation of a Kurdish state bordering this region, as it would give the Kurds a base of operations and allow them to turn Eastern Turkey into a great big West Bank.

Anyhow, when the largest group that would seemingly benefit from Saddam's fall doesn't want the US to topple him, you've got to think again about invading. Too many people look at this as a way to end Saddam's tyranny, free the suffering people, get rid of his weapons of mass destruction, blah, blah. When what would likely happen in the end is the establishment of a similar regime, that is Shiite in character and a strong ally of Iran. Unless the US is planning to run the country as a puppet with a dictator that can be controlled -- and boy, that worked out real well in Iran, didn't it? -- it's hard to imagine Saddam's fall resulting in any sort of positive change or stability, at least in the short-term (meaning 10-15 years).

[Erik]

Because of that, and because Bush Sr. screwed them over at the end of the Gulf War, the Kurds don't want US interference in the country. If Saddam falls, the northern no-fly zone goes with him, and centralized control over all of Iraq will go back to Baghdad.

Yet they seem perfectly content with the ongoing American and British enforced no-fly zones - the essential component of their current autonomy. If the Kurds are serious about their lofty Federation non-interference policy, we should stop wasting money guarding their airspace with our rocket ships.

Northern Iraq is currently jointly controlled by two Kurdish factions: the KUP and PDK. In the past ten years, they've more or less made peace with each other and largely moderated their rhetoric. In fact, they routinely let the Turkish military into Northern Iraq to hunt for members the still-militant Kurdistan Workers Party. I'm not convinced that toppling Saddam would necessarily result in Eastern Turkey becoming a "great big West Bank".

[Toddy]

Really? Show me a source. If that's true, it's incredibly bizarre, seeing as the Turks have been pretty much slaughtering Kurds in the east for over a decade. I've only heard that it's gotten worse and worse since 1997, when the Turks started using American helicopter gunships to take out whole settlements.

[Erik]

Allright, I'll concede due to lack of supporting evidence. I read an article about it two weeks ago. But now - mysteriously - I can't find it. I'd usually blame the Jews, but in this case it's anyone's guess who's conspiring against me. The article talked about the underground Diesel trade between Ankara and the Kurds, as well as the big business of Turkish contractors helping build infrastructure in Northern Iraq. You can still find some stuff about the Workers Party, though. They'll kill pretty much anyone.

[Toddy]

I did a little searching and was about to concede to you, actually. Found a few articles mentioning that the Turks have been going into Northern Iraq after PKK members on a regular basis. Found nothing to indicate any formal arrangement with the Kurds in Iraq, although I got the idea that they support these raids indirectly to make sure that the PKK doesn't get a foothold there.

The whole situation is beyond strange. The Kurds in Iraq are using the Turks to wipe out a threat to their current government, but still want to incorporate a lot of Anatolia in Kurdistan. The Turks want no part of a Kurdish state anywhere, yet they're helping to build one by killing off its internal enemies. That the Turks are doing this (they surely don't want to help the Kurds in Iraq) shows that they really fear the PKK setting up shop in Northern Iraq and bopping across the border at will. So I think that the West Bank analogy certainly holds up. Nyah.

As a side point, William Dalyrymple's From the Holy Mountain features some great stuff about how unstable Eastern Turkey was when he traveled through the region in the mid-1990s. The Turks had the region locked down during the day and the Kurds did whatever they wanted to after dark. So you either chose the Turks and the possibility of meeting a nice man with nipple clamp electrodes or the Kurds and the possibility of being kidnapped or simply murdered for your Timex. Dalyrymple's relief at getting over the border into the freedom of Syria says it all.

[Jim F.]

And this is why you rattle your sabre...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-08-02-iraq-inspectors_x.htm

[Toddy]

Why's that? So Iraq can pull the anticipated diplomatic end-around and begin negotiations with the UN to let the inspectors back in? All this will do is further isolate the US as the only country that wants to invade Iraq, and make Bush's position even tougher than it is already. All those early demands to let the inspectors back in are coming back to bite him, since it's obvious that won't be enough now.

[Anonymous]

http://www.fair.org/media-beat/020802.html

[Anonymous]

Now, with righteous war drums beating loudly in Washington, let's reach deep down into the news media's Orwellian memory hole and retrieve the story.


George Orwell would have understood.

Yes, we all wish the democratic utopia of Iraq would stop shaming the United States of Orwellian Nazi Big Oil Secret Pipeline Global Megacorp East Timor Prison Planet, Inc.

[Anonymous]

Gawrsh, it's easy to get some people to bust a blood vessel and start speaking nonsnense. Choke down a ham sandwich, read the article, and chill out, mi pobre hombrecita!

[Anonymous]

Okay, I don't get the point of the article.

Did our current totalitarian nightmare begin in 1999, or did the reporting of this story by every single newspaper and the resulting admission by the U.S. Government all occur while the Thought Police were on a smoke break? Plenty of media outlets are clearly skeptical of pursuing a war in Iraq. For instance, nobody can accuse the New York Times of being hawkish.

Here's my conspiracy theory: The media's anti-war factions have plenty of good reasons to oppose the war on thoroughly Bush-centric grounds without dragging the orwello-fascist but generally well-liked Clinton regime into it.

[Anonymous]

Oh, shut up Sinner. We're all sick of listening to your shit...[/quote]