Hog-awash
One defense being thrown up in the wake of the Al Qaqaa "missing explosives" revelation is the huge amount of munitions already destroyed by Coalition forces. The assertion is that Iraq was "awash" in dangerous armaments, so that, in context, the loss of a relatively small 380 tons is not such a big deal.
Hogwash.
Let's think a moment. Was Saddam's heinous regime constantly struggling against armed uprisings? Were car bombings and RPGs a feature of every-day life in the pre-invasion Iraq? Were we going in to aid an armed resistance to the despotic Saddam? No.
If Iraq is "awash" in munitions now, who gets the blame for that? Sure, Saddam had secreted stockpiles of weapons all over the country, even in schools and mosques. Of course he did. Just as one would if one were planning to be fighting a guerilla war against an invader of overwhelming power. The presence of large, distributed supplies of weapons in Iraq was eminently predictable, and any failure to anticipate it a failure in planning. A reasonable attacking force would have been able to anticipate the enemy would do this, and prepare for it. Why assume that Saddam would try and fight the US forces on their terms, in a head-to-head combat between his huge but decrepit Army and the world's best-trained and best-equipped high-tech battleforce? Saddam is insane, but he isn't stupid.
Even so, our forces might reasonably be excused if they'd missed some caches hidden in unexpected places. It could be argued that there was no way to prevent some of those weapons from leaking out, once the regime was toppled.
But the site in the news this week was known. It had been identified by the IAEA as a site of special concern. If it turned out we'd missed 380 tons of high-explosives hidden in a school somewhere, that might be one thing. Missing 380 tons from a site where we KNEW there were explosives is another.
And arguing that Iraq is awash in weapons is just adding insult to injury, not an excuse. It's awash in weapons NOW because we attacked and destroyed the only control over those weapons, and didn't do enough to stop them getting loose. It may be comforting to have a huge number that says "look at all we DID do," but clearly it was not enough.
I don't think we should have attacked in the first place, but if we were going to, it was the administration's responsibility to anticipate what it was getting into, and prepare for it. They blew it. Al Qaqaa is just one data point that shows how badly.
Which is what makes me cringe every time Bush asserts that he is the candidate who knows how to keep us safe, and be successful in the War on Terror. The record shows otherwise.
Hogwash.
Let's think a moment. Was Saddam's heinous regime constantly struggling against armed uprisings? Were car bombings and RPGs a feature of every-day life in the pre-invasion Iraq? Were we going in to aid an armed resistance to the despotic Saddam? No.
If Iraq is "awash" in munitions now, who gets the blame for that? Sure, Saddam had secreted stockpiles of weapons all over the country, even in schools and mosques. Of course he did. Just as one would if one were planning to be fighting a guerilla war against an invader of overwhelming power. The presence of large, distributed supplies of weapons in Iraq was eminently predictable, and any failure to anticipate it a failure in planning. A reasonable attacking force would have been able to anticipate the enemy would do this, and prepare for it. Why assume that Saddam would try and fight the US forces on their terms, in a head-to-head combat between his huge but decrepit Army and the world's best-trained and best-equipped high-tech battleforce? Saddam is insane, but he isn't stupid.
Even so, our forces might reasonably be excused if they'd missed some caches hidden in unexpected places. It could be argued that there was no way to prevent some of those weapons from leaking out, once the regime was toppled.
But the site in the news this week was known. It had been identified by the IAEA as a site of special concern. If it turned out we'd missed 380 tons of high-explosives hidden in a school somewhere, that might be one thing. Missing 380 tons from a site where we KNEW there were explosives is another.
And arguing that Iraq is awash in weapons is just adding insult to injury, not an excuse. It's awash in weapons NOW because we attacked and destroyed the only control over those weapons, and didn't do enough to stop them getting loose. It may be comforting to have a huge number that says "look at all we DID do," but clearly it was not enough.
I don't think we should have attacked in the first place, but if we were going to, it was the administration's responsibility to anticipate what it was getting into, and prepare for it. They blew it. Al Qaqaa is just one data point that shows how badly.
Which is what makes me cringe every time Bush asserts that he is the candidate who knows how to keep us safe, and be successful in the War on Terror. The record shows otherwise.
posted by Paul at 11:57 AM |
|
email this
