So Much for a "Quagmire" (good read)

NRO ^ | Dec 14, 2003 | Mackubin Thomas Owen

[neverdem]

December 14, 2003, 12:02 p.m. So Much for a “Quagmire” Honor and competence catches Iraq's rat.

Al Gore must be thinking life is pretty unfair about now. After dominating the news by endorsing Howard Dean, thereby making a play for the pro-Saddam wing of the Democratic party, he is unceremoniously swept aside by the news that U.S. soldiers have captured Saddam Hussein. Oh well. Unless your approach to investing is to buy high, sell low, and make up the difference in volume, you probably shouldn't take financial advice from the guy who recently asserted that the war in Iraq is a "quagmire" and the worst foreign-policy mistake in the history of the United States.

Of course all is not lost for Al, Howard, and the other Saddamite Democrats. As CNN's Christine Amanpour helpfully has pointed out, Osama bin Laden has not yet been caught.

What will happen now that Saddam has been captured? Will attacks against the Coalition and our Iraqi allies decline? The answer is probably "yes," but such an outcome is by no means guaranteed. The good news is that Baath-party dead-enders will probably lose hope, as loyalists in the Romanian Securitate did following the 1989 revolution against the Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. In that case, the dictator's praetorian guard continued to resist those who had ousted Ceausescu in the hope that they might restore him to power. Resistance ended after the dictator and his wife were executed and their bullet-riddled bodies shown on television.

It is also likely that even Baath-party loyalists will now conclude that it is in their interest to turn in the foreign jihadis, whose continued actions can only now make life more miserable for all Iraqis, even those who can no longer hope for a return to their privileged status under Saddam. The bad news is that German resistance to the allies after World War II continued for three years although it was common knowledge that Hitler was dead.

So what will be Saddam's fate? He will probably be tried in Iraq for crimes against humanity. Then I would vote for a national lottery to be held in which relatives of those killed by Saddam would vie for the right to execute him in a manner of their own choosing. Maybe he could be drawn and quartered, with one part of his remains going to the Kurds and another part to the Shia.

This of course puts me at odds with certain "human-rights activists" who are, according to a Knight-Ridder dispatch, "worried that Iraqi war crimes tribunals…will be a kangaroo court in which victims will seek retribution against their former persecutors." I'm guessing that Wes Clark would not approve either, given his comments on Hardball with Chris Matthews the other night. Here's what the good general said about America's other most wanted, Osama bin Laden, when asked by Matthews if he thought Osama bin Laden should, when caught, be tried in the United States or The Hague:

I would like to see him tried in The Hague, and I tell you why. I think it's very important for U.S. legitimacy and for building other support in the war on terror for trying them in The Hague, under international law with an international group of justices, bringing witnesses from other nations. Remember, 80 other nations lost citizens in that strike on the World Trade Center. It was a crime against humanity, and he needs to be tried in international court….

….I think that you can adequately punish Osama bin Laden, and you've got to look beyond simple retribution against an individual. You have to look at what's in the long-term security interest in the security in America and you have to look at how we handle the war on terror from here on out.

Speaking of Clark, I had an uncomfortable feeling about him long before he became a Democratic candidate for president. For one thing, I never met a single Army officer who had a favorable opinion of him. I cannot recall any comparable example of such nearly unanimous disdain for a senior officer.

It only recently hit me why this is the case. The answer is to be found in Anton Myrer's epic novel, Once an Eagle, a riveting account of life in the U.S. Army from before World War I until the early days of Vietnam. The protagonists are Sam Damon, the selfless, honorable, and competent leader who rises to general after receiving a battlefield commission, but who never forgets his roots as an enlisted soldier; Courtney Massengale, a brilliant, smooth, and ruthless West Point graduate who epitomizes the careerist officer, out for himself and no one else.

Once an Eagle has long been required reading for both Army and Marine Corps officers (I read it when I was a young Marine lieutenant) because it so clearly illustrates two competing archetypes of officership and military professionalism. Wesley Clark is Courtney Massengale. Fortunately for the republic, most American officers adhere more closely to the Sam Damon school of leadership than to that of Courtney Massengale. That's why our soldiers caught Saddam and that's why we will prevail in Iraq.

[neverdem]

FWIW, life is not fair to Al Gore. Bwahaha

[neverdem]

Oops,the author's last name is Owens. Pardon me.

[finnman69]

Saddamfreude!

[freedom44]

ping

[ChewedGum]

Poor Al. He has Clinton's drive for recognition without any timing.

Gum

[Reagan Man]

I think the Bathist loyalists and those terrorists stupid enough to have entered Iraq, are the ones who've been caught in "the" real quagmire. We entrapped Saddam Hussein and the US military continues making life difficult for the dwindling Saddamite thugs and IslamoFascists dumb enough to stick around Iraq. Not a good predicament to be in. This all proves, the end is around the corner. OTOH, if we listen to Howie Dean and his anti-war supporters, PresBush is the enemy and we have no business defending ourselves. Dean can't beat Bush with that political agenda. Won't work.

[MainFrame65]

The Memphis Commercial Appeal Washington reporter is James Brosnan, who has spent his entire career as waterboy for the Gores, Senior and Junior. Here is his latest attempt, remarkable only for its incredibly bad timing (A special talent of both Junior Gore and the unfortunate Mr. Brosnan).

---

Gore's nod a testimony to Dean's savvy

By James W. Brosnan
WASHINGTON -

Only in Washington or Manhattan would a governor who was elected five times be regarded as political "outsider."

Former Vermont governor Howard Dean's wooing of Tennessee politicians shows that he can play the inside game of politics as well as recruit supporters and collect campaign contributions through the Internet.

One example was the endorsement last week by former vice president Al Gore. Dean realized that the way to Gore's heart is through issues, not politics or personality, and solicited his views.

Roy Neel, Gore's former chief of staff, said Gore's thoughts on opposing the war in Iraq were reflected in the tone and language of Dean's speeches.

"It's one thing to ask for advice. It's another thing to take it," Neel said.

Gore's running mate in 2000, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., had moved so far from Gore in favor of the invasion of Iraq "that he could have hardly expected an endorsement," Neel said.

Gore should have found a way to let Lieberman know of his intentions, however. A few days later, Gore E-mailed key supporters and explained why he backed Dean.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who is backing Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., said of Dean: "I think he's a very effective politician. I can't think of any of our nominees who would not have wanted Al Gore's endorsement."

Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen is similarly impressed with Dean's efforts to reach out.

Dean huddled with Bredesen during a meeting of the National Governors Association in February for advice on campaigning in the South.

As a native New Yorker, Bredesen said he learned in Tennessee that Southerners are more interested in character and less interested in issues than voters in other places.

"I think people want to feel that somebody has a core. They want to know who they are," Bredesen said.

Since that meeting, Bredesen said Dean has called "multiple times."

"He was the most effective telephone worker by a considerable margin," said Bredesen, who has decided not to endorse any of the Democratic contenders before the Feb. 10 primary in Tennessee.

Memphis Mayor Willie Herenton is taking a similar stance for now, but if he endorses anyone, it won't be Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. Herenton was offended when top aide Gale Jones Carson and key ally Sidney Chism were invited to a Kerry reception last spring and he wasn't.

Attorney David Cocke, who chairs the Kerry Shelby County campaign now but didn't then, said the reception was hastily put together and that the invitations were issued from the Washington headquarters.

Dean called Herenton directly in September as well as Harold Ford Sr. even though his congressman son is backing Kerry.

Harold Ford Jr. still believes Kerry is the Democrats' best general-election candidate. But if Kerry's campaign doesn't survive the New Hamp shire primary, don't be surprised if Ford throws his support to Dean.

Dean's political acumen shouldn't surprise anyone.

"Vermont is a small, moderately unique state, but so is Arkansas," Bredesen said.

Dean had to run for re-election every two years just as Bill Clinton had to do in Arkansas before the state changed the governor's term to four years. You can't do that without constant politicking with local officials and legislators.

Being a governor is "much closer to the real world" than what goes on in Washington, Bredesen said. "I think history and my generation has shown that a governorship is much sounder ground to run for president from."

But Dean is far from having the nomination sewn up. Gephardt, Kerry, Lieberman, Gen. Wesley Clark or Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., could emerge from the pack to make it a two- or three-man race.

[walford]

I hate to put a damper on things, but we mustn't get overconfident in our euphoria at Saddam's capture to think that the Left will finally concede we did the right thing in removing Saddam. The Left always applies a double-standard to anything their side does wrong and anything ours does right. They are always eager to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

When Bubba got caught lying about Monica, I thought for sure he was finished, because I figured he would be treated the same as if he were a Republican.

Here our troops have defeated one of the most bloodthirsty dictators in the history of the world, and the President of the United States is portrayed as the bad guy. I'm hearing some commentators saying that the Arab street is offended at how Saddam was humiliated on camera.

When he was captured, only Fox News felt that it was necessary to review his responsibility in killing over 300,000 of his own, and countless others [I flipped around the dial -- didn't Dan look confused?]

The Left is already working hard to push this great event under the rug:

Hussein's Capture Is Yesterday's News
By Christopher Scheer
h**p://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17387
"...We are, none of us, in a very good place. We are encouraged to believe in an Alice-in-Wonderland world in which Saddam Hussein is a workable stand-in for Osama bin Ladin; that it is worth sacrificing thousands of American lives to grant human rights to Iraqis but not to Congolese, Burmese, Liberians, Uzbekistanis, Syrians, Colombians, North Koreans and other societies that lack precious natural resources; and that progressives actually oppose human rights and base their political positions on an irrational hatred of alleged patriots like George W. Bush..."

Saddam Hussein’s capture will not resolve Iraqi quagmire
h**p://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/dec2003/sadd-d15_prn.shtml
"...There is no doubt that the gloating in both the White House and the media will continue for many days to come. Having demonized Hussein as the equal of Hitler, his apprehension is treated as a milestone in the birth of a “free” and “democratic” Iraq. This interpretation of events evades a number of inconvenient questions..."

[R. Scott]

I would like to see him tried in The Hague, and I tell you why.

I would not like to see him tried in The Hague, and I tell you why. There is no death penalty, and Saddam might live out the prison sentence.
I also would not like to see him tried in the USA – I’m hard pressed to think of what charges he could be brought against him under US Law. He committed no crimes while in a US jurisdiction.
I prefer to see him tried in Iraq by Iraqis. They are likely to order a swift execution.

[Rummyfan]

....under international law with an international group of justices, bringing witnesses from other nations...

Wesley, you chump, there is no such thing as international law! On this one simple issue Clark has shown why he is not presidential material. How did this man ever rise through the ranks to general????

[VRW Conspirator]

I prefer to see him tried in Iraq by Iraqis. They are likely to order a swift execution.

More importantly. The rest of the Arab world will see that is the Iraqis who tried him and not the "infidels". That would put a burr int the saddle of the muktars.

[neverdem]

"How did this man ever rise through the ranks to general???"

Surely, you jest. Let me take a wild guess, @ss kissing.

[neverdem]

Ping

[R. Scott]

Another good point, although some would call the Iraqis "puppets".

[fourdeuce82d]

I would vote for a national lottery to be held in which relatives of those killed by Saddam would vie for the right to execute him in a manner of their own choosing.

death by cheese grater. Start at the toes and work up. over a period of a year or so.

[walford]

"Another good point, although some would call the Iraqis 'puppets.'"

they already are...
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9607

"...it means that the United States and its puppet governing council in Iraq will have yet another showdown with the world community over Saddam’s trial. The United States and its allies would like a quick show trial and an execution; James Woolsey—the former CIA director and one of the leading advocates since the 1990s for war in Iraq—has already called for a hanging, and Ahmad Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress and the Pentagon’s chief Iraqi ally, says that preparations for a trial are already underway. But human rights groups, the UN and others in the world community will insist on a Milosevic-style international proceeding, sans death penalty..."

I especially like how earlier in the linked article the author wrote that removing Saddam has thrown Iraq into 'chaos' -- as if it was much better there before. It doesn't matter to such internationalists and diplomacy-at-any-price advocates that Saddam killed thousands, started two wars, torched 600 oil well, used poison gas in battle and on his own people, imprisoned children, etc. etc.

'At least Saddam brought stability' is their mindset.

[R. Scott]

I especially like how earlier in the linked article the author wrote that removing Saddam has thrown Iraq into 'chaos' -- as if it was much better there before.

To some it was “much better before” – there was less street crime (no one setting off car bombs and mines). As long as a person toed the party line and was a member of the correct religion and never had a bad thought or utterance for Saddam or wasn’t a Kurd etc. etc. they would be relatively safe. Remember that to some socialists and those who believe in personal safety at any price personal safety and economic well being is paramount.

[walford]

There is also a cadre of career diplomats who advocate 'stability' at any price, no matter who suffers. As observed by NRO's Jason Mowbray:

http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2003/oct_2003_30.html
"...State embraced Saddam Hussein more fervently after the Iran/Iraq war than it did while conflict raged. Although the Reagan Administration supported Iraq to act as a foil to Iran, State had a different reason.

After the war ended in stalemate, Iraq's Revolutionary guards forcibly relocated untold thousands [mainly Kurds] in the late 1980s, also killing 100,000. Hussein also used chemical weapons on a scale unseen since World War I. State's interpretation of this: Saddam demonstrated sufficient resolve to be a 'stabilizing force' in the region and should therefore be accorded recognition..."

[HighWheeler]

"...Al Gore...making a play for the pro-Saddam wing of the Democratic party,...

How many humans are in the anti-Sodom wing of the RAT party? Maybe Zell Miller.

[Mat_Helm]

Saddam has been the fly paper and rat poisen to attract all the jihadist into the shooting gallery for annihilation. Leftwing liberals and leftwing presidential candidates and leftwing media outlets have also been caught by the Saddam rat poisen and exposed by the Saddam fly paper into the light of day to be disposed of by the American people. Saddam is bringing out all the rats into the light of day to be exposed and the American people will be throwing all of these traitors, saddomites, jihadists, into the trash heap and out the door along with the cold bloody bathast water down the drain. Alqatie Couric the colon queen is leading the way for all Ameria to see how corrupt and out of touch and slanted the liberal whiny media is. We have a vicotry in the war on terror and they try to rob us of that victory. How truly stupid and self destructive are these liberlas. Can they truly be this stupid and out of touch? The democrats have let there one sided media become their own worst enemy in an uncontrolable monster that is eating its own by showing how traitorous and unamerican they are. ABCNNBCBS will soon be nothiong but a tabliod entity with nobody listening but thieves, fellons, athiests, abortion clinics, welfare recipients, perverts, serial killers, the clinton library, and Al Frankin.